' IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 claiming to be the landlords of Shop No 167, Darbar Road, Mithan Kot, Tehsil and District Rajanpur made an application for eviction of the petitioner alleging wilful default for the month of May 2009 till the making of the application at the rate of Rs,2500 per month. The arrears till then totaled Rs,47,000. The petitioner filed an application for leave to contest. It was averred therein that the property in question was the subject-malter of a civil suit already pending and that the petitioner was in fact a tenant of Mst. Allah Bachai who had died and thereafter the petitioner was paying the rent due to her legal heirs. Thus, the relationship between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was denied. This application was resisted by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 also made an application soliciting an order directing the present petitioner to deposit the rent with the Special Judge Rent. Both these applications were decided vide the impugned order dated 21-1-2011. The learned Special Judge Rent directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent froth the month of May, 2009 till 'January, 2010 at the rate of Rs,2500 per month rent and future rent at the same rate till the finalization of the case. The petitioner was also directed to execute a rent deed between him and respondents. Nos. 3 and 4. The application for leave to defend was accepted. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 21-2- 2011 .On the ground that an appeal did not lie against an order directing the petitioner/tenant to pay the rent and an appeal would lie against a final order.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal against an order requiring a tenant to pay the arrears of rent is maintainable in view of the provisions of sections 2(b) and 28 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. Thus, the order dismissing the petitioner's appeal on this score is illegal; that since the petitioner has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, the order passed by the, learned Special Judge Rent directing the petitioner to pay the rent is illegal altogether and that the learned Special Judge Rent directing the petitioner to execute a rent deed with respondents Nos. 3 and 4 has Thus, made a premature decision of the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant while deciding the application for leave to defend. Relies on "Muhammad Iqbal Haider and another v. Vth. Rent Controller/Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central am:1'2 others" (2009 YLR 136), "Mst. Parveen Bibi v.
Shahan Masih and 2 others" (2007 CLC 1106) and "Muhammad Wakil Khan v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 3 others" 2007 CLC 1151 (Lahore)
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 supports the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge and the learned Special Judge.
Rent. Contends that an 'appeal as is laid down in section 28 of the Act of 2009, is not maintainable against an order for payment of rent under section 24 of the Act; that the language of this section itself differentiates and distinguishes between a final order culminating in eviction of the tenant or dismissal of the application and an interim order. The order in question requiring the petitioner to pay the arrears and future rent is not a final order and is not appealable; that the order directing the petitioner to pay the arrears and future rent does not decide the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant as issuer No,6 which is yet to be decided pertains to this relationship. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 however concedes that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge Rent directing the petitioner to execute the agreement at the initial stage is illegal and expresses his no objection if the finding regarding the payment of rent in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge Rent is expunged.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and also gone through the, record.
5. Section 24- of the Act provides that while granting leave to contest, the Rent Tribunal shall direct the tenant to deposit 'the rent agreed or if disputed, the tentative rent. This amount as may be directed by the Rent Tribunal, is to be deposited in the account of the landlord or in the tribunal.
Prima facie, an interim order to pay the rent may not to be a final order as section 24 continues further and provides that the tenant shall keep on paying the rent till the final order. It may either by the one culminating in the eviction of the tenant or in the dismissal of the eviction application. This Section has however to be read along with section 2(b) of the Act. It reads as follows:--
(b) "final order" means a final order passed by a Rent Tribunal culminating the proceedings including an order in respect of adjustment of pagri, advance rent, security, arrears of rent, compensation or costs but shall not include an order passed in an execution proceedings."
' The provisions of both these sections shall now be read in juxtaposition and contradistinction with the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Section 15(1) of the Ordinance reads as follows:- "15. Appeal (1) Any party aggrieved by an order of the Controller finally disposing of an application made under this Ordinance may within thirty days of the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area where the building or rented land in relation to which the order is passed, is situated: ' Provided that no appeal shall lie against an order made by a Controller under subsection (6) of Section 13 determining approximately the amount of rent due or the rate of rent and directing the tenant to deposit all the rent due: , Provided further that no appeal shall lie from an interlocutory order passed by the Controller."
The provisions of section 15 ibid firstly segregate an appealable order from all 'other orders by qualifying the former as the one finally disposing of an application made under the ordinance. By supplementing subsection (1) of section 15 with two provisos, it completely bars an appeal against an order passed under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance i,e, and order to pay the arrears or the future rent and also against an interlocutory order. The corresponding provisions under section 28 read with section 2(b) of the Act ibid are distinctive and different. The judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not apply to a case under the Rent law now in vogue.
' A final order under the Act ibid includes an order for arrears of rent. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Rent Tribunal directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of Rent is a final order under section 2(b) of the Act and is appealable under Section 28. In the Ordinance, to the contrary, an interim order for payment of the arrears or the future rent is not appealable.
6. At this stage, shall the instant writ petition be accepted and the case be remanded to the appellant Court for decision afresh or be decided by this Court itself. In my view, there is sufficient material available in the file to enable this Court to pronounce the judgment. The order of the Rent Tribunal to the extent of directing the petitioner to execute a rent agreement with respondents Nos.
3 and 4, being violative of law and in view of the concession made by the learned counsel for the said respondents is declared illegal, set aside and is expunged and is no more the part of the impugned order passed by the Special Judge. Rent. This petition to that extent, stands accepted.
The impugned order passed by the Special Judge Rent directing the petitioner to pay the arrears and the future rent does not determine the relationship of landlord or tenant as the Rent. Tribunal has already framed issue No,6 on this point that is yet to be decided. As the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is denied by the petitioner, he however admits his character of being a tenant though under another landlord therefore, he will not be depositing, the tentative rent in the bank account of the respondents but will be tendering the same before the Rent Tribunal. This will safeguard the rights of both the parties and also of a third person whom the petitioner attorns to be his landlord. Either of them who ultimately wins, will have the money deposited with the Tribunal. The order passed by the learner Appellate Court refusing' to entertain the appeal is declared illegal and is set aside as an appeal against the order impugned before it was maintainable. The impugned order passed by the Special Judge Rent is partly set aside as far it binds the petitioner to execute a rent deed with respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The said order to the extent of payment of the arrears, and the future rent by the petitioner and payment of fine by respondents Nos.3 and 4, stays. This petition stands partly accepted. The case is remanded to Special Judge Rent. He will further proceed with the eviction application from the stage after the acceptance of petitioner's application for leave to contest the eviction application.