' In a petition filed under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent-Restriction Act, 1963, for ejectment of the petitioners from the property in dispute a preliminary objection about want of service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was raised by the petitioner. This question was decided in favour of respondent No,
3. As a result of that finding the Rent Controller passed an order under section 17(8) of the Act directing the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent as well as the current rent at the rate of Rs, 250 per month calculated according to the latest assessm ent.
2. The petitioner challenged this interim order by way of an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but his appeal was dismissed on merits. He challenged that order by this writ petition.
3. During the pendency of this writ petition, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain (1), that no appeal under section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is competent against an interim order of the Rent Controller. The same law applies to the Act of 1963 which is similarly worded. I am, therefore, of the view that the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge was not competent. The petitioner, therefore, has an adequate and beneficial remedy by way of an appeal against a final order that may be passed by the Rent Controller. He can raise in such appeal all these points. For this reason this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(1) PLD 1975 SC 457