On 18-9-1977, the respondent filed a petition against the appellants for their ejectment from the main portion of Property No. SE-36-R-92, Railway Road, Lahore, which is being used as a school, on the ground of default and damage to the property. The building was originally hired by appellant No. 2, but on the nationalisation of schools by the Government, appellant No. 1 became the tenant.
2. On 12-4-1978, which was the date fixed for filing the written statement, it appears, that no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. As in spite of the opportunities given to them, the appellants failed to file the written statement, the learned Rent Controller, passed order, dated 12-4-1978 under Order VIII, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code ejecting the appellants.
3. Earlier, during the course of hearing of the case, before the learned Rent Controller, the appellants on 5-3-1978, moved an application that the property had been requisitioned on 30-1- 1978, under the provisions of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, and that therefore, his jurisdiction to proceed with the matter stood ousted. The Learned Rent Controller was, however, of the view that as the Punjab Government was already in possession of the building as a tenant it could not be requisitioned. For his this determination, he relied on Muhammad Tufail v. Province of Punjab and 5 others (PLD 1978Lah.87). Accordingly, by his order, dated 2-4-1978, he rejected the appellant's application.
4. The appellants challenged the "ejectment order through an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 14-5-1978. He held that several opportunities were given to the appellants but they did not file the written statement and that therefore, the learned Rent Controller rightly ordered their ejectment. As regards the ouster of jurisdiction, because of requisitioning of the demised premises, the learned Additional District Judge endorsed the view taken by the learned Rent Controller and maintained that 'the property already in possession of the Government could not be validly requisitioned. The appellants have now come up in second appeal.
The first submission of the appellant's learned counsel was that as on 12-4-1978, the appellants were absent, the learned Rent Controller could proceed only under Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code and pass an ex parte order but an order under Order VIII, rule 10 could not be passed against them. He relied on Abdul Qaddus v. Abdul Rehman's (PLD 1970 Azad J & K 21), for his these submissions.
6. It is difficult" to agree with the learned counsel. No doubt the learned Rent Controller was the Civil Judge but he acted as persona designata while hearing the ejectment petition. It is now well established _ that a Rent Controller is not a Court and he is not bound in every case to follow the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code. In petition under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, he has mere to hold an inquiry into the matter. The mode of the inquiry has been left to him and the parties have no right to produce such evidence before him as they desire. Khadim Mohyuddin v. Rehmat Ali (PLD 1965 SC 459), is the authority for this proposition. Mere mention of provisions of Order VIII, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, in the ejectment order, is of no significance and does oat change -the character of the jurisdiction exercised by the Rent Controller. I find from the record that ample opportunity was given to the appellants to file written statement and the case was fixed thrice for this purpose. It is discernible from the file that the appellants have been obtaining adjournments on one pretext or the other and their conduct smacked of indifference towards the proceedings pending before the learned Rent Controller. In the precedent relied upon by the appellants' learned counsel, the defendant had not been called upon to file the written statement as 8 required by Order VIII, rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was, therefore, held that the Court had no authority to proceed against him under Order VIII, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts of the instant case are all together different. This ruling is, therefore, of no help to the appellants. In the circumstances of the case, the learned Rent Controller rightly proceeded against the appellants because of their persistent lapse.
7. The appellants' learned counsel, however, raised another formidable objection. He argued that section 11 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, expressly ousts jurisdiction of the courts to pass an ejectment order, in respect of any building requisitioned under the Act. It was forcefully urged that the Rent Controller being a Special Tribunal, could not examine the vires of the requisitioning order. Elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel contended that after the requisition of the property, the learned Rent Controller ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter and that, therefore, order of the appellate authority confirming the ejectment order, also could not be sustained. In reply to these submissions on behalf of the respondent it was, however, urged that the building in dispute being already in possession of the Punjab Government no valid order, under section 3 of the Act, for its requisition, could be made. It was submitted that the order dated 30-1-1978, whereby the building in dispute was requisitioned was a void order, and therefore, the learned Rent Controller was bound to ignore it.
8. The reasoning advanced by the respondent's learned counsel for sustaining the impugned order does not appear to be well-grounded, section 11 of the Act, unequivocally lays down that no injunction or order for ejectment or delivery of possession in respect of the building, which has been requisitioned, shall be passed by any Court or by any authority. Thus accord--ing to him, if the order dated 30-1-1978, is void, the Rent Controller will have the jurisdiction in the matter, as a void order is non-existent in the eye of law, and is liable to be ignored. On this reasoning, on the other hand, if the order is not found to be void, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller will be excluded. If the basis of this reasoning is accepted, the Rent Controller first shall have to adjudge the legal merits of the requisitioning order. Thus, the result of his inquiry, regarding the validity of the requisi--tioning order would be the deciding factor for determining as to whether or not he was possessed of the jurisdiction to continue with the trial. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel. In view of the provisions of section 11 of the Act jurisdiction of the Rent Controller cannot be C made to depend upon the correctness of the litigant's contentions. Further--more, the learned Rent Controller being a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, had no authority to determine the vires of the requisitioning order. The ruling relied upon by the learned Rent Controller, which was also referred to by the respondent's learned counsel need not be examined in detail as in that case, the validity of requisitioning order was challenged through a writ petition.
9. As a result of this discussion I find that after the property was requisitioned, the learned Rent Controller ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the ejectment petition. The ejectment order passed by him thus being without lawful authority cannot be upheld. The order passed by the appellate authority confirming this order, therefore, has also got to be set aside. The appeal is, therefore, accepted, the orders under appeal set aside and the ejectment petition dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.