' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this appeal the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned District Judge Liaquatpur dated 20-6-2006.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Ch. Riasat Ali filed an application for ejectment of the appellant under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter will be called as Ordinance) with regard to a non-residential building fully described in the head note of the application. The appellant appeared in the Court and filed a written reply on 3-12-2005. He denied from the relationship. Before appearance of the appellant on the first date i,e, 2-4-2005 while entertaining the rent application the learned Rent Controller passed the order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance and ordered the appellant to deposit the monthly rent @, Rs,1100 per month from January, 2002 to March, 2005 and also to deposit the future rent on 5th of every month. The appellant after appearing in the rent proceedings on 19-5-2006 made an application for recall of the said order dated 2-4-2005. On 19-5-2006 the learned Rent Controller refused to recall the order but struck off the defence of the appellant and the order for eviction of the appellant was passed and he was directed to hand over the possession of the suit property of the ejectment petition.
2. Aggrieved by the orders dated 2-4-2005 and 19-5-2006, the appellant filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Liaquatpur. This appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide his order dated 20-6-2006 on the ground that the appeal is not entertainable against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the Ordinance.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order dismissing the appeal is not maintainable as the learned first appellate court find that the order is not the subject of appeal.
Further contends that the learned Rent Controller was not having jurisdiction to pass an order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance before appearance of the appellant before him and farther contends that when the appellant denied from the relationship even after appearance of the appellant, the order for deposit of rent under section 13(6) of the Ordinance could not have been passed.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the learned Rent Controller can pass the order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance at any time. He has supported the orders passed by both the courts below.
5. Arguments heard.
6. So far as the order for deposit of rent dated 2-4-2005 is concerned, at the face of it, it is absolutely wrong and without jurisdiction as the learned Rent Controller, is summoning the respondent of the rent petition and simultaneously without his appearance, issuing order for deposit of rent behind his back without taking into consideration the matter whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. Further when the appellant applied for recall of order dated 19-5-2006 then it was on the record of the rent petition that the appellant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, order dated 19-5-2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller was also without jurisdiction. While the Rent Controller struck off the defence of the appellant and ordered for his eviction. The appeal filed by the appellant before the first appellate court was also dismissed finding that it is not maintainable as it is against the order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. From the record it is visible that the first appellate court has even not applied its mind to the facts of the case or it seems as it has not even seen the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller. First of all the order dated 2-4-2005 was without jurisdiction. Furthermore when finally the order for eviction was passed on 19-5-2006, both the orders were under challenge before it, he was bound to entertain the, appeal and to decide it on merits. Therefore, his order is also against the law.
7. In the light of what has been discussed above', I set aside the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 2-4-2005 and 19-5-2006 and that of the appellate court dated 20-6-2006. This appeal is accepted and the case is remanded to the leaned Rent Controller who shall frame an issue with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant first and then decide issue after taking evidence of the parties.