MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Through this S.A.O order dated 26-4-2007 and 10-10- 2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller and learned appeal court respectively, have been assailed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of present S.A.O are that on 29-7-2006 Mr. Badar Din son of Gulab Din filed ah ejectment petition against Zahir Taj son of Jamrood Khan, the appellant of the present S.A.O.
The property, subject matter of the ejectment petition is a commercial unit commonly known a Shop No,8 Abkari Road, new Anarkali Lahore. The ground for ejectment of the tenant was shown the personal need and default in payment of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of learned First Appeal Court is based on misreading of order of Rent Controller. The said order is a final order in terms of section 15(2) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance. He contends that order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was passed on 22-3-2007 whereas the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26-4-2007 whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off and the ejectment order was passed against him and he was directed to hand over the vacant physical possession of the Shop No,8 within one month. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of learned appeal court is bad in law and is not sustainable.
3. On 22-3-2007 the learned Rent Controller passed an order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, directing the tenant/petitioner to deposit the rent in the court subject to adjustment of earlier payment. On 26-4-2007 the learned Rent Controller after perusing the record came to know that the tenant has failed to comply with the order dated 22-3- 2007 passed under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 and vide order dated 26-4-2007 accepted the application and directed the respondent/ tenant to vacate the shop within a period of one month. The respondent/tenant was further directed to deposit the future rent at the rate of Rs,7500 per month.
4. The said order was assailed through an appeal which was dismissed by the learned appeal court holding that order dated 26-4-2007 is an order passed under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the said order is not appealable and as such dismissed the appeal in limine.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of learned frist Appeal courts is based on misreading of order of Rent controller The said order is a final order in terms of section 15(2) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance He contends that order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 was passed on 22-3-2007 whereas taeh petitioner has assailed the order dated 26-4-2007 whereby tea defence of the petitioner was struck off and the ejectment order was struck off and the order was stuck against him and he was directed to hand over the vacant physical possession of the Shop No.8 within one month. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of learned appeal court is bad in law and is not sustainable.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.
7. Heard. Record perused.
8. Order dated 26-4-2007 shows that it was passed for non-compliance of order dated 22-3-2007 passed under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 through which the right of defence of the appellant was struck off and he was directed to vacate the shop within one month to the landlord. It was further directed through the said order that future rent at the rate of Rs,7500 per month before the 15th of each succeeding month will be payable to the petitioner/landlord till the possession of the rented property is handed over to the landlord.
9. Perusal of order shows that it is a final order passed under section 15(2) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which is an appealable order. The petitioner rightly assailed the said order through an appeal. The learned appeal court without going through the order dated 26-4- 2007 dismissed the appeal holding that impugned order has been passed under section 13(6) of Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the said order is interim in nature. The impugned order dated 10-10-2007 is a complete misreading of record and is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Learned appeal court has wrongly held that order appealed is under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The appellant's appeal was against final order dated 26-4- 2007, and the learned appeal Court was bound to decide the appeal on merits.
10.In view of the above, this S.A.O. is allowed and the order dated 10-10-2007 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned appeal Court who will hear the parties and will decide the appeal on merits.