1. The facts of the case maybe briefly stated. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the premises bearing No. SE-6-R-73/H, Garhi Shahu, Lahore in which Mian Iqbal Hussain High School is situated.
2. This institution was nationalised in October, 1972 and as such started vesting in the Province of Punjab, who was liable to pay rent to the respondent No. 1 as a tenant. A requisition order was passed by the Home Department under section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 read with West Pakistan Government Notification No. Judi.
3. 1.12-(10)/61, dated 15-6-1962. The petitioner raised an objection in the written statement that the property in question having been requisitioned the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist and as such the Rent Controller did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the petition. A preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction was framed and the objection of the petitioner was overruled by the Rent Controller, vide his order dated 16-5-1978. The learned Rent Controller, however, ultimately dismissed the ejectment application on other grounds vide his order dated 19- 4-1979. The respondent filed another ejectment application. The petitioner in his reply once again raised a preliminary objection regarding the requisitioning of theproperty on 13-2-1977 and that the Rent Controller did not have the jurisdic--tion. This time an issue was framed as to the effect of the property having been requisitioned. The learned Rent Controller did not give any indepen--dent finding rather relied upon the earlier finding in the ejectment application. The objection was overruled vide order dated 7-10-1977 by which the learned Rent Controller decided to proceed with the matter. This order has been challenged in the present constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the property had been requisitioned under the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers)
4. Act, 1956, the learned Rent Con--troller did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and as such the proceedings are without lawful authority. It was further contended that the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to examine the vires of requisitioning order. In the last it was argued that no writ petition was competent against an interim order. None of the contentions has any legal force. The property had been requisitioned under the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956. Section I1 of this Act provides as under:- "Exemption from legal processes.-(1) No injunction or an order for ejectment, delivery of possession or appointment of a receiver in respect of any building which has been requisitioned under this Act shall be granted or made by any Court or by any other authority;
(2) No order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court;
(3) Where an order purports to have been made and signed by any authority in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act it shall be presumed that such an order was so made by that authority."
5. After passing of the requisitioning order of the property in question the Rent Controller did not have any authority to pass any order in respect thereof. The learned Rent Controller being a tribunal of the limited jurisdiction bad no authority to determine the vires of the requisitioning order.
6. Muhammad Tufail v. Province of Punjab (PLD 1978 Lab. 87) has been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent to show that an order of requisitioning passed in respect of the property which was in occupation of the Government could not be requisitioned. This contention cannot be examined as in the above-cited case the point was raised in a writ petition in which the orders of requisition had been challenged. At present the limited question involved is whether after the requisitioning of the property the Rent Controller has only jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.
7. The answer is in the negative. This being a question of jurisdiction ought to have been decided by the learned Rent Controller first before proceeding with the matter as laid down in Akhtar Ali v.
8. Altaf-ur-Rehman's (PLD 1963 Lah. 390s) and the learned Rent Controller cannot be permitted to proceed with the case in which he does not have any jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this petition was not maintainable having been filed against an interlocutory order. Strictly speaking the present writ petition is not against any interlocutory order.
9. Under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 an proceedings can also be declared to be without lawful authority. This order is not in the nature of an order holding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This is an order by which the learned Rent Cont--roller has assumed jurisdiction when he had ceased to have any jurisdiction after the passing of the requisitioning order. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited Messrs Kandawala & Co. v. Sh. Rashid-ud- Din (1969 SCMR 720) and Khadim Mohy-ud-Din v. Ch. Rahmat Ali Nagra (PLD 1965 SC 459). Both these cases laid down that no appeal was competent against an interlocutory order under section 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. In one of the unreported judgment (S. A. O. No. 410 of 1978)
10. [now reported in 1982 CLC 169] where order of eviction had been passed in suit of the order of requisitioning my learned brother Mr. Muhammad Afzal Lone, J. Had observed that under section 11 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 the Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.
3. In view of the above discussion this writ petition is accepted and it is hereby declared that after passing of the requisitioning order dated 13-2-1971 the Rent Controller ceased to have any jurisdiction in respect of property bearing No. SE-6-R-73/H and further proceedings are without any lawful authority. However the parties are left to bear their own costs.