The facts necessary for the disposal of this constitution petition are that in an ejectment petition filed by the petitioner against respondent No,2, preliminary issue "Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, if so to what effect?" was decided with the finding that petitioner as well as his brother Muhammad Hussain are the landlords and the respondent No, 2 is the tenant under them. This was, vide order, dated 22-10-1981.
Thereafter, on the same day, the issues on merits were framed and a direction under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Ordinance) was also passed by the learned Rent Controller whereby the respondent-tenant was directed to deposit rent for the period commencing from 18-4-1976 to October, 1981, at the rate of Rs,170 p.m. Before 3-1-1982. It was, however, added that if any rent has been deposited in somebody's name, the same may be withdrawn by the respondent-tenant. Thereafter, the respondent-tenant filed two applications saying that the rent was paid till January, 1978 to Tahir Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain under the directions of the landlord and that the rent for the subsequent period was being deposited with the Rent Controller and, as such, the rent for the entire period stands paid. In the other application, stay of the operation of the order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance was sought. Learned Rent Controller, vide order, dated 19-12-1981 stayed the operation of the order and fixed both these applications for arguments on 3-1-1982. The petitioner- landlord challenged the order, dated 22-10-1981 and order, dated 19-12-1981 in constitution jurisdiction.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued in support of the constitution petition that a Rent Controller has no jurisdiction under the Ordinance to review its own order and that in any case the finding that the petitioner as well as Muhammad Hussain, his brother, are the landlords, is illegal as the learned Rent Controller is not competent to 'decide the question of title. Learned counsel for the respondent in reply submitted that the finding as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be termed as a finding on question of title and that in any case such a finding returned by the learned Rent. Controller operates for the purposes of the Ordinance and title on the' basis of such a finding of the Rent Controller cannot be claimed.
3. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the finding as to relationship of landlord and tenant is recorded for the purposes of disposal of the ejectment petition and title in the property as such cannot be based entirely on such a finding recorded in rent proceedings. Be that as it may, the petitioner still has the remedy to assail the said finding in case the ejectment petition is decided against him by prefering an appeal before the Appellate Court under section 15 of the Ordinance. These questions as such need not be examined at this stage.
4. As regards the order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, it will be seen that the operation of the order, dated 22-10-1981 was stayed vide order, dated 19-12- 1981. The order ultimately passed on the two applications submitted by the respondent-tenant has not been brought on record. It may also be added that the orders under section 13(6) of the Ordinance are passed by taking a tentative view of the matters mentioned in the aforesaid subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance. These matters are to be decided finally at the time of final disposal of the ejectment petition. I am told that the proceedings in the ejectment petition are almost complete and the ejectment petition itself will be decided shortly. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to deal with the question whether or not the orders passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance can be reviewed, modified or altered, lest it may prejudicially affect the case of one or the other party. The issue regarding default has already been framed and the question whether the amount paid to Tahir Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain is a valid tender will have to be gone into.
5. For the reasons given above, this petition is disposed of with the above observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.