ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-By this petition leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Writ Petition No. 330 of 1982, whereby the order passed by the District Judge on 13-5-1982 in a Rent Appeal was set aside and the case has been remanded to the learned District Judge for a fresh decision on the preliminary issue and if necessary on merits.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to the question of ejectment from a shop the transfer of which is being claimed by petitioner Sharif Hussain in his favour as against the plea of respondent Havaldar Pir Bakhsh who claimed that the shop had been transferred to him by the Settlement Authorities. There is no dispute as to the description with reference to property numbers of the respective properties transferred to the aforesaid two contesting parties. Property No. B-111-10-S- 12/A, urban area Chakwal has been transferred to the latter, whereas Property No. B-111-10-S-13/A stands transferred to petitioner Sharif Hussain. The bone of contention is whether the shop presently in occupation of the petitioners is the property bearing No. 13/A or 12/A.
3. The controversy came to light when an ejectment application was filed before the Rent Controller by Pir Bakhsh against respondent Khudadad as the statutory, tenant, petitioner Sharif Hussain as sub-tenant and petitioner Shamim Hussain as transferee from the sub-tenant. The petitioners contested these proceedings and raised the objection that since the property in dispute has been transferred to petitioner Sharif Hussain, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and since this was a dispute pertaining to the title of the property, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to determine this question. This litigation has a checkered history having gone through the various stages and it is not necessary for the present purposes to give the details thereof. Suffice it to say that, ultimately the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 25-11- 1981. Came to the conclusion that there existed relationship of tenant and landlord, respondent Pir Bakhsh being the landlord/transferee of the shop under No. 12/A and directed the petitioners to be evicted from the premises. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge, disagreeing with the view taken by the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal on the ground that while deciding the preliminary issue the Rent Controller was not competent to give a definite finding as regards the title to the property. This order, as already observed, was challenged before the high. Court and by the impugned order a learned Single Judge, has taken the view that the Rent Controller was well within his jurisdiction to determine the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties which constituted the foundational facts for the exercise of his jurisdiction. The case was, therefore, remanded by the learned Judge for a decision on the merits as to the finding on the preliminary issue and in case of an affirmative finding, to further decide the appeal on the rest of the matter in dispute.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who has very fairly conceded, in the course of his arguments, that the Rent Controller being a statutory Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, was nevertheless entitled to determine the question whether Pir Bakhsh was the landlord and Khudadad tenant of the premises in question. He concedes also to the proposition that such a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction has the jurisdiction to decide questions relating to the existence of facts upon which its jurisdiction can be exercised and such a finding is open to question before a proper forum of plenary jurisdiction. His submission, however, is that on the facts the petitioner Shamim Hussain is the real transferee of the disputed shop and that he would be prejudiced if he is evicted from the premises under the order passed in the ejectment proceedings. We see no force in this submission the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is conceded to the extent stated above, there was no legal infirmity in his determining this question, although his finding was subject to review in appeal by the District Judge. Further the petitioners still have an opportunity to represent their point of view before the learned District Judge who has been required to decide the case a indicated in the impugned judgment. Since the appeal has been remanded for fresh hearing to the learned District Judge, within the scope of his powers under the relevant provisions of law, the parties would also be entitled to be given the opportunity of hearing including the production of any additional evidence and, therefore, we find no justification for the apprehension expressed that the petitioners will be prejudiced. With these observations we would accordingly dismiss this petition.