' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J. --- Through this writ petition, the petitioner has requested to set aside the order dated 09.12.2013 passed by respondent NO. 1 being non-maintainable in the eye of law.
2. Facts as emerging from this writ petition are that the petitioner is working as Deputy Head Mistress (BS-18) under the supervision of respondent No,
3. She got hired upper portion of House No, 830, Sector I/10-4, Islamabad through respondent No, 3 under lease agreement made with one Mst.
Kalsoom Begum on 27.10.2009 for a period of three years upto 26.10.2012, which was further extended for a period of three years from 27.10.2012 to 26.10.2015. The rent of said property was fixed at Rs, 21,000/- per month, out of which, Rs, 14,110/- according to entitlement of the petitioner were to be paid by respondent No, 3, whereas difference of Rs, 6,890/- had to be paid by the petitioner from her own Project. Since 27.10.2009, house rent allowance is being deducted regularly from monthly salary of the petitioner. During lease agreement for further three years, respondent No, 2 namely Ch. Zafar-ul-Haq stepped into shoes of Mst. Kalsoom Begum being purchaser of above House and filed applications in the office of respondent No,
3. In response, respondent No, 3 informed him to let complete the lease period till 26.10.2015. Another application for making alleged default in payment on behalf the petitioner was moved by respondent No, 2, which was denied by respondent No, 3 and asked him not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner before expiry of lease period. Thereafter, respondent No, 2 filed ejectment petition, which was decided by respondent No, 1 vide his impugned order, hence writ petition in hand.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that impugned order has been passed ignoring the fact that respondent No, 2, who stepped into shoes of previous owner, was bound to fulfill the liabilities of the previous owner. The petitioner was not served with any notice regarding change of ownership by respondent No, 2, which was a mandatory requirement of law. Respondent No, 2 with the connivance of some officials of respondent No, 3 filed ejectment petition. One Said Akbar, Inspector, FDE appeared before respondent No, 1 without any authority letter by the Department and endorsed the sale of above House by Mst. Kalsoom Begum in favour of respondent No,
2. The ejectment petition cannot be filed until and unless the lease period expires. He has further contended that as per law, no question of personal need arises, till the expiry of lease period. There exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No, 2 and the petitioner and in this perspective, impugned order is nullity in the eye of law. He further argued that on one hand, the department is deducting house rent allowance from the monthly salary of the petitioner uptill now and on the other hand, the petitioner is being forced through the impugned order to pay the whole amount of Rs, 21,000/- from her own pocket by sidelining the lease period, which is causing hardship to the petitioner On the basis of above grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested for setting aside of the impugned order.
4. Conversely, while supporting the impugned order, it has been argued on behalf of respondent No, 2 that the petitioner was well within knowledge that house in question has been purchased by respondent No,
2. Soon after the purchase, respondent No, 2 approached the petitioner in this regard and requested to vacate the said premises, as the same, was required for his personal use.
It has been contended that the petitioner moved application for dehiring of above premises before respondent No, 3, but no response was given. Learned counsel has contended that petitioner is a rent defaulter from 15.05.2013 and is an illegal occupant of the said premises.
5. Learned Standing Counsel assisted by the representative of respondent No, 3 has argued that due to change of ownership as apparent from CDA's letter dated 15.05.2013, lease agreement made with the previous owner has been terminated w,e,f, 15.5.2013, as the new owner did not sign any document regarding extension of lease agreement, rather he requested FDE to handover peaceful possession of the premises in question. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was asked to locate some other house for herself and vacate the demise premises. As FDE is not in a position to pay rent to the new owner. He has further argued that although house rent allowance is being deducted regularly from monthly pay of the petitioner, but same can be refunded to her, if she makes a request in this behalf.
6. Arguments advanced have been heard, record and relevant provisions of law have been perused.
7. Admittedly, the lease period was further extended upto 26.10.2015 by fixing the rent at Rs, 21,000/- per month. Out of total rent on"hiring basis, an amount of Rs, 14,110/- to be paid by respondent No, 3, whereas difference of rent of Rs, 6,890/- is required to be paid by the petitioner from her own pocket.
8. The view taken by one of the officials of FDE with regard to new ownership and non-execution Of new rent with respondent No, 2, who now stepped into shoes of the previous owner, is not a correct proposition. On the contrary, the Department should have followed their earlier correspondence with the new owner with regard to completion lease period and payment of rent.
9. It is also an admitted fact on record that Department was also cited as respondent No, 2 in ejectment petition, but non-deposit of rent was only burdened upon the petitioner, rather being a common liability should have been shared by respondent No, 3 i,e, Federal Directorate of Education also.
10. After purchase of-the suit premises, the new owner accepted the commitments and liabilities incurred over the property, which is binding upon him including the agreement executed between the previous owner and the petitioner, which was extended upto 26.10.2015.
11. From perusal of impugned order, it is evident that learned Rent Controller directed the petitioner to pay Rs, 1,47,000/- as total arrear from May, 2013 to November, 2013 to respondent No, 2 before next date of hearing. Moreover, it was further directed that rent of Rs, 21,000/- per month be paid to respondent No, 2 on 15th of each month. In my view, the above directions were totally contrary to law, as the same were passed ignoring the responsibility of the Department i,e, respondent No, 3 to pay its part of rent, in the absence of such direction, the order of learned Rent Controller suffers from legal infirmity.
12. From the general complexion of the case, it appears that earlier, the Department was favouring the petitioner in respect of extended lease period, but later on, when respondent. No, 2 filed applications some officials of the Department i,e, respondent No, 3 changed their attitude towards the petitioner for extraneous reasons as summersault, even they tried to damage the case of the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller. Apparently, they circumvented eviction of the petitioner from the suit property in league with respondent No,
13. As far as the non-maintainability of this writ petition against an interim order passed by the learned Rent Controller is concerned, I am of the view that when by hook or by crook, all the ways for seeking remedy by the petitioner were closed and the order. Passed by the learned Rent Controller is suffering from legal infirmities interference in the impugned order is required.
14. In view of above discussed legal and factual position. I am of the opinion that the order .Passed by the learned Rent Controller suffers from legal and. Factual infirmities. Hence it requires interference. Resultantly. Instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.2.2013 is set aside. Respondent No, 1 i,e, learned Rent Controller is required to provide further opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned for the purpose of considering all the above discussed aspects, which were earlier not considered and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.