' This writ petition calls in question the validity of order, dated 29th January, 1980 of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore whereby he in exercise of his powers under section 13(6) of the Rent. Restriction Ordinance, 1959 directed the respondent No, 1 to furnish security for the arrears of rent and stayed ejectment proceedings against the respondent pending disposal of the suit between the parties for specific performance of agreement, dated 31st December, 1975.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner sought ejectment of respondent No, 1 from the house in dispute by means of an application filed by him on 12th September, 1977 on the ground that he had committed default in payment of rent and that the property was required for his personal need and further that the same was damaged by him. The ejectment petition was resisted by respondent No,
1. It was pleaded that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The petitioner had agreed to sell the disputed house to him vide agreement, dated 31st December, 1975 and had received Rs, 20,000 as part payment out of the sale price. The learned Rent Controller framed following preliminary issue : "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties ?"
' The parties led avidence in support of their cases and the learned Rent Controller vide his order, dated 30th June, 1979 held that the respondent No, 1 was tenant under the petitioner in the disputed house. He did not pass order of respondent's ejectment forthwith but adjourned the case for passing appropriate order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. In the meantime the case was entrusted to another Rent Controller for disposal. On 29th January, 1980 the learned Rent Controller passed the impugned order under section 13 (6) of the aforementioned Ordinance, 1959. He took into consideration the advance payment received by the petitioner towards the sale price of the house in dispute and some amount paid by him towards the tax liability of the petitioner. He instead of directing the respondent to deposit arrears of rent ordered him to furnish security for a sum of Rs, 40,000 payable to the petitioner in the event his suit for specific performance was dismissed and stayed the ejectment proceedings against him pending disposal of the suit for specific performance between the parties. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the respondent No, I had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and after the decision of issue on that score was made in favour of the petitioner it was incumbent upon the learned Rent Controller to have straightway passed order of respondent's ejectment. It was next submitted that the learned Rent Controller acted without jurisdiction while directing the respondent to furnish security for the arrears of rent subject to the decision of the suit for specific performance. It was lastly stated that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to stay the ejectment proceedings against the respondent merely because the respondent had instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement executed between the parties in respect of the same house. It was stated that the respondent by virtue of the aforementioned agreement did not become the owner of the property because total consideration was not paid to the vendor.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 opposed this petition and stated that the present writ petition being directed against the interim order was not competent. It was next contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller was appropriate and in accordance with the principle of natural. Justice.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on the file. It is true that the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller was an interlocutor order but it is well-settled that the same is not appealable and in this was the petitioner is left with no remedy against the impugned order. The nature of the order passed in the circumstances of the case otherwise justified the maintainability of this petition particularly when the learned Rent Controller in excess of his jurisdiction stayed ejectment proceedings sine die against the respondent and passed no order directing respondent to deposit future monthly rent of the disputed property. Section 13(6) provides : "(6)-In proceedings under this section on the first date of hearing or as soon as possible after that date and before issues are framed, the Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit all the rent due from him and also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case, before the fifteenth day of each month, the monthly rent due from him. If there is any dispute about the amount of rent due or the rate of rent, the Controller shall determine such amount approximately and direct that the same be deposited by the tenant before a date to be fixed for the purpose. If the tenant makes default in the compliance of such an order, then if he is the petitioner, his application shall be dismissed summarily and if he is the respondent his defence shall be struck off and the landlord put into possession of the property without taking any further proceedings in the case. The Controller shall finally determine the amount of rent due from the tenant and direct that the same be paid to the landlord, subject to adjustment of the approximate amount deposited by the tenant."
It is clear that it was incumbent upon the learned Rent Controller t have directed the respondent to deposit all rent due from him and also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case before 15th of each month, the monthly rent due from him. In case of dispute about the arrears of rent due of the rate of rent he was to determine the approximate amount and directed the respondent to deposit the same before a date fixed for the purpose. The learned Rent Controller overlooked the relevant provision of law in passing the impugned order. He was exercising limited jurisdiction as such he was not competent to stay the proceedings merely because the respondent had instituted a suit for specific performance against the petitioner.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller is declared to be of no legal effect and I quashed. The case is remitted to him for further proceeding in the matter in accordance with law.
7. This petition is allowed with costs.