' ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.--- By invoking constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 29-9-2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Tando Adam, District Sanghar whereby while allowing application under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance, 1979") the opponent/petitioner No.1 has been directed to deposit arrears of rent from 24-4-2011 to 24-4-2014 (three years) amounting to Rs,3,36,060, within one month, and future rent at the rate of Rs.9,700 per month with the Nazir of the Court on 10th of every month till disposal of rent application.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant/ respondent No.1 being the owner of Madina Shopping Centre, Tando Adam rented out the, demised premises i.e. Shop No.4 to opponent/petitioner No.1 at a monthly rent of Rs.6,000 vide rent agreement dated 4-8-2009 for the period of 11 months; that it was agreed between the parties that after expiry of the said agreement, the fresh rent agreement shall be executed with enhancement of 10% in existing rent after 11 months of each term; that the opponent/petitioner No.1 also agreed that if he failed to pay the rent of two consecutive months, the applicant/respondent No.1 would have right to eject him from the demised premises; that the opponent/petitioner No.1 failed to pay the rent from 1-7-2010 and he also sub-let the demised premises to opponent/petitioner No.2 without intimation and prior permission of the applicant/respondent No.1, therefore, he served a legal notice dated 1-4-2014 upon the opponents/petitioners, followed by Rent Application No.3 of 2014, under section 15(2)(ii) and (vii) of the Ordinance, 1979 before the learned Court of Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Tando Adam.
3. The opponent/petitioner No.2 in his written reply to the rent application, while denying the case of the applicant/respondent No.1, has stated that he is the owner of shop No.18 of Madina Shopping Centre, which he had purchased in the year 2007 from one Muhammad Rafiq, through a sale agreement, in the sum of Rs.15,00,000, out of which he has already paid Rs.10,00,000 to said Muhammad Rafiq and the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000 is yet to be paid to him, on his arrival from London, at the time of execution of registered sale deed. He has categorically denied that he is in possession of demised premises i.e. Shop No.4 and stated that he has no concern with demised shop.
4. Applicant/respondent No.1 filed an application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance, 1979. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, on 29-9-2014 passed the tentative rent order impugned herein.
5. On the presentation of instant petition, the office raised objection vis-a-vis its maintainability as an interlocutory order passed in a rent application has been impugned in the petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.
7. Mr. Aamir Ali Memon, the learned counsel for the petitioners has inter alia contended that the petitioner No.2 is not occupying the demised premises i.e. Shop No 4 but the shop No.18 of the Madina Shopping Centre being its pie-Tective owner by virtue of a sale agreement, therefore, there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He has also contended that the learned Rent Controller, without framing and deciding a preliminary legal issue with regard to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, passed the tentative rent order illegally and without jurisdiction. Relying on the ratio of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Muhammad Danish Rafiq v. Mst. Nafisa Siddiqui and another, reported as 2009 M LD 144, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this Court can interfere in the matter under its constitutional jurisdiction.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the material available on record.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has focused his arguments on the sole point that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Rent Controller without framing and deciding preliminary issue with regard to the existence of relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties. It appears from the perusal of the record that the application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance, 1979, was filed by the respondent No.1/applicant on 24-4-2014, while the impugned order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 29-9-2014, but the petitioners failed to file any counter affidavit/objections to said application in intervening period raising the ground of non- existence of any relationship of land lord and tenant between parties. The impugned tentative rent order of the learned Rent Controller is interlocutory/ interim in nature and the same is even not appealable under the Ordinance, 1979. No order has yet been passed by the learned Rent Controller under section 16(2) of the Ordinance, 1979. The provision of appeal has been provided under section 21 of the Ordinance, 1979 by the legislature against the final order of the Rent Controller. The petitioners will have opportunity to file the appeal if the final order goes against them and they can raise the afore-stated ground too. Therefore, the instant constitutional petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory/ interim order of Rent Controller. The reason being that if constitutional petition were to be entertained, the very purpose of section 21 of the Ordinance, 1979 would be defeated. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the case of Mst. Seema Begum v.
Muhammad Ishaq and others (PLD 2009 SC 45).
10. The judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Danish Rafiq (supra) does not improve the case pleaded by the opponent/ respondent No.2 as in the said case the petitioner/tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and the Rent Controller simultaneously passing the order under section 16(1) of the Ordinance, 1979, framed an issue with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, this Court while, observing the fact that the tentative rent order cannot be implemented unless said issue is resolved by the Rent Controller, held that the tentative order passed by the Rent Controller being without jurisdiction can be interfered by High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction. In the instant case, the learned Rent Controller has not simultaneously framed any such issue while passing the impugned order. Even the petitioners have not filed any application before the Rent Controller for framing of such preliminary issue.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition does not merit consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine along with the listed application with no order as to costs.