' AAMER FAROOQ, J. --- The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 13.04.2015 passed by respondent No, 1, under Section 17(8) of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance), directing the petitioner to pay rent since July, 2012 till todate Rs, 190,000/- (Rupees one hundred ninety thousand only) alongwith 10% annual increase after September, 2011 before 18.04.2015 and also deposit future rent @ Rs, 278,180/- (Rupees two hundred seventy-eight thousand one hundred & eighty month before 15th of each month. Respondent No, 2 instituted eviction proceedings against the petitioner with respect to House No, 3, Street No, 56, F-7/4, Islamabad. The petitioner contested the eviction application and contended that the rent agreement is valid till 08.09.2015, therefore, the application for eviction is not maintainable. Respondent No, 1 during the course of proceedings passed an order under Section 17(8) of the Ordinance whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit rent @ Rs, 190,000/-(Rupees one hundred & ninety thousand only) from July, 2012 till todate alongwith 10% per annum increase. The said order of respondent No, 1 was impugned by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No, 487/2015. The Constitutional petition was allowed and order dated 24.01.2015 passed by respondent No, 1 was set aside with direction to respondent No, 1 to pass order under Section 17(8) ibid according to mandate of law. The learned Rent Controller/respondent No, 1 in compliance to the order of this Court passed order dated 13.04.2015 which has been assailed, by the petitioner, through the instant Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner has been condemned unheard. In this regard it was submitted that the petitioner filed an application for amendment in reply to the eviction application and arguments were addressed on the same; the petitioner was not allowed any opportunity to address arguments on the application under Section 17(8) of the Ordinance. It was further contended that respondent No, 1 has not complied with the direction passed by this Court in W.P. No, 487/2015 and there are material variations in the impugned order. In this regard it was submitted by the learned counsel that monthly rent has been fixed as Rs, 278,180/- (Rupees two hundred seventy-eight thousand, one hundred & eighty only) per month without any basis or justification.
3. The learned counsel. For respondent No, 2, inter alia submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with law. It was further contended that as was observed by respondent No, 1 in order dated 24.01.2015 rent fixed in the year 2010 was Rs, 1.90,000/- (Rupees one hundred & ninety thousand only) alongwith 10% annual increase, however, the petitioner has beer directed to deposit monthly rent since July, 2012 till todate @ Rs, 190,000/- (Rupees one hundred & ninety thousand only) alongwith 10% annual increase applicable after September, 2011, therefore, there is no ambiguity or jurisdictional error in the order under Section 17(8) ibid.
4. In compliance to order dated 12.03.2015, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No, 487/2015, respondent No, 1 has passed the impugned order wherein the time for making payment has been specified. In this regard the arrears are to be paid before the next date of hearing (18.04.2015) and the monthly rent is to be paid before 15th of each month: Insofar as the calculation of the monthly rent and arrears is concerned the basis has been made the monthly rent in the year 2010 which was Rs, 190,000/- (Rupees one hundred & ninety thousand only) alongwith 10% annual increase and the referred annual increase has been made applicable from September, 2011. Respondent No, 1 has directed the petitioner to pay arrears from July, 2012 till to date and the monthly rent @ Rs, 278,180/- (Rupees two hundred seventy eight thousand, one hundred & eighty only) before 15th of each month. The figure of Rs 278,180/- (Rupees two hundred seventy eight thousand, one hundred & eighty only) has been arrived at after increasing rent @ of 10% per annum since September, 2011.
5. The order passed under Section 17(8) of the Ordinance is interim in nature and under the referred provision where the amount of rent is disputed the Court can determine such amount approximately, in other words the order passed is tentative and is subject to the final determination of rent at the time of conclusion of the proceedings. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was condemned unheard in fact the impugned order clearly shows that arguments were addressed by the parties.
6. As stated above the impugned order is interim, against which no appeal is provided under the Ordinance. On the conclusion of the eviction proceedings the above-said order shall merge into the final order which is appealable under Section 21 ibid. It is trite law that an interim order cannot be impugned in the Constitutional proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 unless the same is patently illegal or without jurisdiction. In the present case there is no jurisdictional or legal infirmity in the impugned order.
7. For the foregoing reasons the present Constitutional petition is without merit and is dismissed.