' Abdul Salam respondent sought the petitioners' eviction from the premises in dispute, inter alia on the ground of default. The latter contested it and raised the plea that the demised premises comprised a scheduled building. Issue No,2 was framed regarding default and the controversy as to whether or not the property was scheduled building, was covered by issue No,5. The learned Rent Controller answered both the issues in favour of the landlord. The tenants appeal before the learned Additional District Judge also failed. They have now come to this Court for removal of the orders passed by the Tribunals below through judicial review.
2. Before the learned Rent Controller at a very belated stage, when the case was fixed for arguments, the petitioners moved an application for amendment of the written statement, so as to include therein, the plea that the demised premises consisted of a factory and, therefore, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction. This application was disallowed. Likewise, another application filed by them, for appointment of Local Commissioner, to ascertain the character of the property, was also rejected.
3. It appears that the plea sought to be urged through the amendment of the written statement, was raised by the petitioners, during the hearing of their appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. he, however, rejected the same and maintained that the property was not let out as a factory and that the petitioners got registered the premises as a factory, during the pendency of the appeal. The contention that the premises were a scheduled building, was also reiterated but it was discarded by the learned Appellate Authority.
4.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been argued that their application for amendment, involved a jurisdictional issue, the learned Rent Controller, therefore, acted illegally in dismissing the same. According to their learned counsel, the objection raised in the written statement as to the property being a scheduled building, in fact was aimed at urging the plea, that the demised premises comprised an industrial concern, and this could not be subjected to the provisions of the Rent Restriction Ordinance and that the mention of the building as a scheduled building, was merely due to the user of a wrong terminology. It was thus, contended that the learned Additional District Judge fell in error in turning down the petitioners plea rested on the nature of the property. For his these submissions, he heavily relied on Messrs Rahman Cotton Factory v. Messrs Nichimen Co. Ltd. PLD 1976 SC 781 and Ghulam Hussain v. Abdur Rehman PLD 1982 Lah 519.
5. I see no merit in these submissions. The application for amendment was submitted after about three years of the filing of the written statement and was merely an afterthought intended to be used as a lever to prolong the litigation. The decision of the plea, sought to be raised through amendment of the written statement, necessarily required recording of the evidence. The application having been made at a very late stage, was rightly rejected. In any case, the learned Additional District Judge dealt with this aspect, in some depth and found that the factory was registered while the appeal was subdue. There is reason to believe that the character of the premises was changed during the continuation of the tenancy. Anyhow, as held by the learned Additional District Judge installation of one or two Lathe Machines in a building would not take it out of the pale of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. In Rehman Cotton Factory's case, the property had been let out for running a cotton ginning factory and machinery was installed therein. Because of the nature of the property, it has been held in this precedent, that the Ordinance does not apply to a factory equipped with machinery, as such property is not covered lay the definition of the term "non-residential building", "rented land" and "residential building" as given in section 2 of the Ordinance. Such a situation, however, does not obtain in this case. In Ghulam Hussain v. Abdur Rehman, an objection to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller had been raised, on which an issue was also formulated. It was, therefore, maintained that without deciding the question of jurisdiction, the Rent Controller could not pass an order for the deposit of the rent. This ruling has also no bearing on the facts of the case.
6. The view taken by the Tribunals below is in conformity with law. There is no good ground to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.