It was on the ground of default that ejectment of petitioner, Muhammad Umar, was ordered by the Rent Controller, Lahore Canton--ment, under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the said Act. He preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller but the same was dismissed by Rao Muhammad Hayat Khan, Additional District Judge, Lahore. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition to challenge the orders of the two tribunals below.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to bear the appeal. His argu--ment was that since the appeal was taken to the District Judge, Lahore, only he could decide the appeal and there was no power vesting in him to assign the appeal to the learned Additional District Judge for disposal. Conceding that like the District Judge, the Additional District Judge was competent to decide appeals against ejectment orders made under the said Act, it was urged by him that that the Additional District Judge could decide only those appeals which were taken directly to him. Learned counsel invited my attention to the provisions of subsection (2) of section 1 S of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordi--nance, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance, and maintained that although according to the said provisions the District Judge could assign to an Additional District Judge an appeal entertained by him (District Judge) under the Ordinance there was no such provision authorising the District Judge to assign to an Additional District Judge. An appeal filed before him (District Judge) under the said Act.
3. As indicated above, it was not disputed by the learned counsel that the learned Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to decide appeals against ejectment orders passed by a Rent Controller under section 1.7 of the said Act. There is nothing in the said Act to show that he could decide only such appeals as were directly filed before him. There is also no provision to the effect that if an appeal is submitted before the District Judge he cannot assign the same to an Additional District Judge for disposal. It is with a view to ensuring even distribution of work amongst the appellate authorities posted at a particular station that the appeals under the said Act are submitted before the District Judge who makes their distribution amongst himself and the Additional District Judges working with him. The appeals retained by the District Judge are disposed of by him and those assigned to the Additional District Judges are decided by them. This practise does not offend against any express provision of law. In Sh. Manzoor Hussain v. Mir Muhammad Mudassir and another PLD 1979 Lab. 745,it was argued that if an ejectment application is filed before a Senior Civil Judge in the capacity of a Rent Controller, he cannot entrust the same for disposal to another Civil Judge enjoying the powers of a Rent Controller but this plea was not accepted by me for the following reasons :- "The Rent Restriction Ordinance does not contain any provision about the entrustment of rent cases as has been made in section 15 of the West Pakistan Civil- Courts Ordinance in respect of the entrustment of cases. Since the Rent Restriction Ordinance happens to be a very brief piece of legislation, a Rent Controller is, as of necessity or for the just and proper administration of this law, permitted to do certain things which are not warranted by any express provision thereof. For instance, it has been ruled in Muhammad Aslam Mirza v. Mst. Khurshid Begum (E' L D 1972 Lab. 603) that a Rent Controller can recall an ex parte order made by him although the Rent Restriction Ordinance does not, in so many words, empower him to do so. The entrustment of cases by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller is aimed at proper distribution of newly-instituted rent cases among the Rent Controllers. It is an administrative arrangement which does not offend against any provision of the Rent Restriction 'Ordinance or am other law. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the entrustment of the present case by the Senior Civil Judge-rum-Rent Controller, was illegal or ultra vires."
The position of entrustment of an ejectment case by a Senior Civil Judge cum---Rent Controller to Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller is not very, much different from that of the entrustment of appeal by a District Judge to an Additional District Judge. I, therefore, do not agree with the learned counsel that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner because it was not directly filed before him but was indirectly received by him in consequence of its entrustment to him by the learned District Judge before whom it was submitted in the first instance.
4. Another contention raised by the learned counsel was that the petitioner had produced evidence showing that he had been paying the rent in dispute but their evidence was not discussed by the learned Additional District Judge. The witnesses examined by him were Wali Muhammad and Fateh Muhammad, and he had also examined himself as his own witness. The statements of all of them were examined by the learned Additional District Judge but were not relied upon by him for various reasons. The contention of the learned counsel regarding non- consideration of the peti--tioner's evidence is, therefore, without substance.
5. There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed in limine.
S, Q,Petition dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.