JUDGMENT SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, J.---This judgment shall dispose of the instant writ petition along with connected Writ Petitions Nos. 2895, 2896, 2897 and 2898 of 2010.
1. Petitioner Muhammad Naveed Sultan filed the instant writ petition seeking the following declaration:-- "On acceptance of this writ petition the Rent Controller, Peshawar question during the cross- examination of P W.1 may please he declared without jurisdiction, illegal, against the law and may please he disallowed/rejected and against the rights of the petitioner."
2. The instant writ petition arising out of the proceedings pending trial before the learned Rent Controller filed by the respondent/landlord against the present petitioner and four other tenants/petitioners vide separate eviction applications alleging, that the demised premises are in dilapidated condition declared as dangerous by the concerned authorities, a notice to demolish the premises has also been received by the landlord/respondent, the concerned authorities approved the site plane of the proposed construction. It is further alleged that after demolition and completion of reconstruction, the tenants/petitioners would be put into possession of the premises on payment of prevailing rate of monthly rent. The application filed on 19-5-2009 seeking the ejectment of tenant as well as recovery of past rent in the proceedings conducted by the Rent Controller, the proceedings in case are at evidence stage.
3. The landlord/respondent appeared as his on witness, his statement was being recorded and during the course of cross-examination on behalf of the tenant/petitioner, reply was made to a question put by the landlord/respondent as below:-- "1 have not made any statement prior to the institution of present ejectment application."
At this stage the learned Rent Controller put a question to the witness, in the following form:-- "Whether you have recorded your statement on affidavit in concern of filing of present case?"
(Objection by the counsel for the respondent that the learned Tribunal is not supposed to put the question to clarify the statement and such question not only damages the case of the respondent and also amounts to giving reply in the mouth of the witness and at this stage, I will request not to further proceed till the remedy is availed from the court of competent jurisdiction).
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the Rent Controller being "persona designate" functions as a Tribunal, thus, not authorized under any provision of law to put question to the witness, according to learned counsel, as per provisions of Qanoon-e-Shahadat, such like powers vested in court to put the question to the witness during recording of his statement, since the provisions of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat not made applicable to the proceedings conducted under Rent Restriction Ordinance, therefore, it may not be allowed to ask from the landlord/ respondent. He further argued that answer of the question obviously not favorable to the defence set-up by the tenant/petitioner, therefore, the very purpose and spirit of cross-examination would be frustrated and amounted the infringement of the rights of the petitioner in the subject-matter, therefore, being not permissible under the law, not to be allowed to seek the answer of same from the witness under examination.
5. We have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by learned counsel and record carefully perused.
6. Viewing the grievances pointed out by learned counsel with reference to legal implication in the instant matter, his arguments about the powers and exercise of the authority by the Rent Controller during the conduct of proceedings, seems to vague misconceived and without there being backing of law. We are conscience of the provisions of law, whereby the authority and power bestowed to the Rent Controller and also that there is no provision causing abridgement or curtailing the functions of Rent Controller as Tribunal, established under Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. In this connection provisions contained in Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Civil Procedure Code and Rent Restriction Ordinance ibid self-explanatory and we can arrive to a irrefragable conclusion that the Judicial Officer while functioning as Rent Controller have all the powers to control, supervise and to regulate the proceedings according to norms of law and justice for the fair and impartial adjudication of the disputes. In order to substantiate our view, we would like to lay down those provisions of law, wherein, the powers bestowed under the law, those are unambiguous and specific in nature, therefore, reference can be made of section 2 (b) of the N- W.F.P. Rent Restriction Ordinance, wherein, it is specified that who can function as Rent Controller, reproduced as under:- "Controller" means a judicial officer who is appointed by the Provincial Government to perform the functions of a Controller under this Ordinance".
7. Besides, in Section-16 of the Ordinance ibid, powers are specified:-- "16. Power to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses, etc.---(1)
For the purposes of this Ordinance an appellate authority of a Controller appointed under this Ordinance shall have the same powers of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of evidence as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."
8. In this regard Article 161 of the B Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984 also specified empowers a Judge in the following manner:-- "161. Judge's power to put questions or order production. The judge may in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he please, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant and may order the production of any documents or things: and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question: Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts, declared by this order to be relevant and duly proved; Provided also that this Article shall not authorize any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under Articles 4 to 14 both inclusive, if the question was asked or the document was called for by the adverse party: nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask under Article 143 or 144 nor shall be dispense with primary evidence of any document except in the cases herein before excepted.
9. As a last resort, the provisions contained in section 141 of the C.P.C. Relating to miscellaneous proceedings are reproduced as below:-- "14. Miscellaneous Proceedings.---The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction."
10. To emphasize the matter in issue, in context of above-stated provisions of law as earlier observed that the Rent Controller is a Judicial Officer and legally authorized to exercise the powers under the provisions relating to the production of evidence as to put the question to a witness being examined, in order to satisfy its conscience, to find out the truth, and to clarify the matter, even otherwise, the judicial officer is not supposed to sit as silent spectator, while supervising the proceedings as his C hands are not tied, and law maker never intended so. The Civil Procedure Code was enacted in year, 1908 but even today effectively cater with all its nicety and complexity of procedural matters arising anywhere in the course of administration of justice. In promoting the dispensation of justice, intent and purpose of age old adage of law that "justice not only be done but it seems to have been done", accordingly made more effective to meet the requirements of present time as by various amendments the changes introduced to make its functioning more effective to solve the problems facing by the litigants public in prosecution of their causes. The law maker nowhere put any clog or restriction in exercise of such powers by the Rent Controller, why we restrict its application, therefore, the Rent Controller vested with all powers, exercisable by a judicial officer. The emphasis laid by the learned counsel while interpreting the law not seems to be in conformity with the provisions of law referred herein, in this regard, the reference can be made to case titled "Anwar Ahmad v. Mst. Nafis Bono through L.Rs. Reported 2005 SCM R 152 citation D reproduced as under:-- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 161---Court's powers regarding evidence Held: A court is always competent to examine and re-examine a witness to satisfy its conscience to find out the truth or otherwise of a statement or a document.
11. To further substantiate the law laid down in the case supra, the view expressed in case titled "Hanif v. Ahmed Shah, reported as 2001 SCMR 581, head note 'C', there is no gainsaying that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure may not be stricto senso applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller; broad and equitable principles to regulate the procedure of proceedings before Rent Controller can always be invoked and attracted in the interest of justice and fair play.
12. In view of above discussion and statutory command, the Rent Controller being a Judicial Officer can put question to the witness in order to clarify and seek explanation of any ambiguity crept in proceeding on account of statement of a witness during his examination in the court as like a court of civil jurisdiction, therefore, the objection is unfounded, immaterial and not sustainable. After elaborating the proposition, we came to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot agitate above stated question in writ jurisdiction of this court, as no order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner has not suffered to his right and nothing done by lower forum as illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority, which might have caused grievances to rights of the petitioner/tenant, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
13. In view of the above discussion, this petition is not maintainable, being without any substance, stands dismissed in limine.