Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 9.9.2009 and 21.10.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Bahawalpur.
2. The brief facts of this case are that an eviction petition u/S. 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was filed by Respondent No, 3 against the petitioner on 2.4.2005 with regard to a non-residential building. The petitioner in his written reply to that eviction petitioner stated that petitioner is tenant of father of eviction petition, namely, Nizam-ud-Din, and not of eviction petitioner. Therefore, from the pleadings of the parties on 1.6.2005 learned trial Court framed the issue with regard to the relationship. Evidence was recorded on 8.3.2008. Mst. Naseem Bibi Respondent No, 2 filed an application for impleading her as petitioner in the eviction petition, which was contested by the writ petitioner and the same was allowed on 16.6.2009. The amended petition was filed.
3. As per contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that without permission of the Court, eviction petitioner cannot amend the petition, therefore, writ petitioner prayed that eviction petition be dismissed due to amendment without permission of the Court. Vide order dated 21.10.2009 this application was rejected with the direction to the eviction petitioner to pay fine of Rs, 1000/- for amending the petition without permission of the Court, and through this order learned Rent Controller allowed the amendment and validated the same subject to payment of Rs, 1000/- as cost. The other application filed by the writ petitioner was that Mst. Naseem Bibi be transposed as respondent in the eviction petition which was dismissed on 9.9.2009. Both these orders are under challenge through this writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. Admittedly, both the orders are of interlocutory nature. The legislature has not provided a right of appeal under Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, against the interlocustory orders.
Therefore, by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to circumvent the intention of legislature is not permissible, as the effected party can validly agitate against the interlocustory or interim orders in the final appeal because right to challenge interlocustory orders remains open. In this context, reliance can be placed upon the judgments reported as 2008 SCM R 269 (Shamshak Khan and another vs. Arif Ashraf Khan and 2 others), 2002 CLC 254 (Haji Noor Muhammad Khan vs. S.A. Majeed and another) and 1999 CLC 400 Karachi (Khawaja Waliullah and others vs. Haji Amir Maqsood)".
Moreover, the jurisdiction vested with the learned Rent Controller being tribunal is not bound to the strict observance of rules of pleadings mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Now it is well settled principle of law that the tribunals are bound to obey the principles of procedural laws. In this view of the matter, the learned Rent Controller has not violated any principle of law. He was rightly exercised jurisdiction by allowing the amendment. Further, when the order of impleading Mst. Naseem Bibi was passed on 16.6.2009 which has never been challenged by any party, the application moved by the writ petitioner for transposing said Mst. Naseem Bibi as respondent was not competent.
6. In the light of what has been discussed above, I see no force in this writ petition which is dismissed. However, before parting with this judgment it is painful that an eviction petition which was filed in the year 2005, is still pending before the learned Rent Controller because after filing this writ petition in the year 2010, the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller/trial Court were stayed. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to decide this matter preferably within a period of two months positively, if need be, the trial Court may conduct the proceedings on day to day basis.