' The premises in question were let out by the appellant society to the respondent/tenant. It is the case of the appellant society that respondent is a member of the society and that an electric meter that was installed in the subject premises did not belong to the said premises and eventually after sometime the meter was shifted to the premises, of the appellant society. In these circumstances the respondent/tenant filed an application under section 11 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 before the Rent Controller for the restoration of the supply of electricity.
' The number of the case is Rent Case No,5636 of 1979. On being served with notice of the rent case, the appellant filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 before the Rent Controller for stay of the proceedings on the ground ,that the respondent was a member of the appellant society and the subject- matter of the application being a dispute within the meaning of the word "dispute" employed in section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, the respondent was bound to refer the matter to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Karachi for arbitration. By the impugned order dated 13th February,1980, the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 moved on behalf of the appellant was rejected by the Rent Controller holding that by Rent Ordinance special jurisdiction has been given to the Rent Controller to decide the disputes relating to disconnection of electricity etc., under section 11 thereof and, therefore, the question of referring such cases to the Registrar Co-operative Societies did not arise. The impugned order is challenged in this first rent appeal by the appellant co-operative society. I have heard Mr.S.Abbas Zia, learned counsel for the appellant. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. A notice had been given to the learned Advocate-General Sind to assist the Court as amicus curiae on the legal question involved in this appeal. This case came up before me on 2nd October, 1983 but the learned Advocate-General did not appear. The case was adjourned and it was directed that a fresh notice be issued. The file shows that the notice was issued and it was received by the office of the Advocate-General Sind. It is, however, regretted that neither the learned Advocate-General nor any one else on his behalf appeared on the date of hearing.
2. The only question involved in this appeal has been formulated as follows:- ' Whether the provisions of section 11 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 will prevail over the provisions of section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 ?
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 was a special enactment whereas the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is a general law and as words employed in the general statute that is the Rent Ordinance, 1979 do not specifically repeal the specific provisions of section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act will prevail. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Federal Court reported in (Punjab Province v. Seeta Ram) PLD 1956 FC 157 wherein it was observed that it was a well-recognized principle that general words in a later enactment do not indirectly repeal the particular provisions in an earlier enactment made for quite a different purpose.
4. Reference may be made here to the relevant provisions of the 1979 Sind Rented Premises Ordinance.
Section 3(1) of this Ordinance lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force all premises other than those owned or requisitioned under any law, by or on behalf of the Federal Government or Provincial Government, situated in an urban area, shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 2(3) provides that the Government may by notification exclude any class of premises or all premises in any area from operation of all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 11 of the Ordinance relates to discontinuance of amenities and services and it is provided that no landlord shall discontinue for cause to be discontinued any service such as electricity, gas or water, except with the previous consent of the tenant or in compliance with the requisition of the concerned authority or after obtaining the directions of the Controller in this behalf. Section 13 of the Rent Ordinance provides that no tenant shall be evicted from the premises in his possession except in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
' Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 relates to arbitration and it provides that if there is any dispute touching the business of a co-operative society other than the dispute regarding the disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid-servant of the society, it shall be referred to the Registrar Co-operative Societies for decision by himself or his nominee or if either of the parties so desires to arbitration of three arbitrators who shall be the Registrar or his nominee and two persons of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties concerned.
' In my view, the provisions of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 make the intention of the law-maker clear and that is that all premises other than those mentioned in section 3(1) shall be subject to the provisions of the Ordinance. In section 3(1), premises owned or requisitioned under any law by or on behalf of the Federal Government or Provincial Government situated within an urban area have been specifically excluded from the purview of the Ordinance. It the intention was not to affect the premises owned by co-operative societies, a similar provision would have been inserted in section 3 that the premises owned by cooperative societies shall not be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. This has not been done and clear inference is that all premises including the premises owned by co-operative societies except the premises owned or requisitioned under any law by or on behalf of the Federal Government or a Provincial Government are subject-matter to the provisions of the 1979 Rent Ordinance. Then there is section 3(2) of the 1979 Rent Ordinance, which gives the power to the Government to exclude any class of premises by notification from operation of all or any of the provisions, of this Ordinance. This subsection also indicates that apart from premises owned or requisitioned by the Federal Government or Provincial Government all other premises are subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, and if at all any other class of premises were required to be excluded from the operation of the provisions of this Ordinance, the Government can do so through notification.
Section 11 provides that amenities and services of the tenant shall not be discontinued by any landlord. The definition of the word "landlord" in section 2(f) of the 1979 Rent Ordinance is a very wide definition and it would include a co-operative society, who has rented out its premises to a tenant. The definiton in section 2(6) does not exclude co-operative societies from the word "landlord".
' 1979 Rent Ordinance is a later enactment and the provisions of this Ordinance about which reference has been made earlier in this judgment clearly show that section 11 of the 1979 Rent Ordinance prevails over B section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, an earlier statute. Particular words have been employed in the 1979 Rent Ordinance and they make the intention of the law-maker evident as observed earlier.
5. As a result, I find no merit in this appeal. First Rent Appeal No,192 of 1980 is dismissed but with no order as to costs.