' The respondents could not be. served at their addresses available on the record and consequently they were served through citation in the Press and were proceeded ex parte on 14-12-1980.
2. This appeal against the order dated 19-5-1979 passed by Malik Saleem Akhtar, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, acting as an Appellate Authority under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was treated by the office as barred by 13 days and was returned to be represented within 3 days with an application for condonation of delay. It was accordingly refiled with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act bearing C.M.No.4658/C/1979 praying that the delay may be condoned on account of illness of the appellant, supported by a medical certificate dated 23-6-1979.
3. Learned counsel has been very candid in stating that he cannot press C.M.No.4658/C of 1979 because it has been rendered unmaintainable on account of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court delivered in Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst.Mumtaz PLD 1982 SC 88 and reaffirmed in Ali Muhammad and another v. Fazal Hussain and others 1983 SCMR 1239, holding that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the appeals filed under the West Pakistan UrbanA Rent Restriction Ordinance, C.M.4658/C of 1979 is accordingly dismissed.
4. However, learned counsel has explained that the S.A.O. was first instituted within limitation on 18- 6-1979 when it was returned for completion of record with a direction to refile it within 3 days but it could not be so refiled on account of illness of the appellant and having been delayed at that stage by 13 days, an application for condonation of this delay was filed. He contends that the appeal itself cannot be treated invalid because of the initial lapse in completing minor formalities relating to the record and the delay in processing the same does not render the appeal time- barred and submits further that even otherwise, in the circumstances of this case a question of limitation does not arise because the orders passed by the Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are nullities for having been passed without jurisdiction in so far as it is not a litigation between a landlord and tenant but is in reality a dispute relating to title between an ex-transferee and the present transferee (the appellant) of erstwhile evacuee property.
5. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly are that an erstwhile evacuee house in possession of the appellant Asghar Ali, bearing quarter No.10-C in Property No.S-83-R-7, Kapoorthala House, Lahore was transferred, in the first instance to Abdul Rahim, the predecessor-in interest of the respondents, by the order dated 26-11-1960 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. This order was later set aside as a result of a protracted litigation between the parties in the Settlement Department and the matter ultimately came upto the High Court in Writ Petition No.917/R of 1975 and was remanded on 6-4-1977 to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for a decision afresh. In the meantime Abdul Rahim had died and, while the transfer order in his favour still subsisted, his widow Mst. Mumtaz Begum sued out the appellant Asghar All on 19-1-1976 for ejectment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. Her petition was accepted by the Controller on 29- 9-1977 by ordering his eviction with the finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant between them stood established on the basis of the transfer order passed in favour of Abdul Rahim. Asghar All filed an appeal there against before the Appellate Authority and during its pendency the dispute relating to the transfer of the property was taken up by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in persuance of the remand order passed by the High Court and was decided in favour of the appellant Asghar Ali on 14-12-1977 and the transfer order was consequently issued in his name. A copy of the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was produced before the Appellate Authority with an application presumably filed under section 15(6) of the Ordinance for its admission as additional evidence. In the meanwhile on account of the death of Mst. Mumtaz Begum the present respondents were impleaded as her legal-representatives but the proceedings taken for this purposes were quite long-drawn and therein the appellant appears to have lost track of his application with the result that even the learned Appellate Authority did not take any notice thereof and by the order dated 19-5-1979 dismissed his appeal by upholding the order of his ejectment on the assumption that the transfer of the property still subsisted in favour of the respondents. This factual misassumption on the part of the Appellate Authority goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Controller and the Appellate Authority. The transfer of title affected during the pendency of proceedings could not be disregarded. Rather, it deserved to be noticed on account of the dictum laid down in Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgi PLD 1978 SC 220 as under:- "A discretion is vested in the Courts to be judicially exercised in proper cases to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to shorten litigation, and to do complete justice between the parties and mould the relief according to the altered circumstances in the larger interest of justice."
6. Since the orders impugned in this appeal have been made to appear to have been passed for ejectment not of a tenant but of transferee of the property and in favour of the respondents who stood deprived of their status as landlords during the pending of the proceedings, therefore, those orders are liable to be set aside as being nullities in law. In Mansab All v. Amir and 3 others PLD 1971 SC 124 it has been held:- "It is an elementary principle that if a mandatory condition for the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court, tribunal or authority is not fulfilled, then the entire proceedings which follow become illegal and suffers from want of jurisdiction. Any order passed in continuation of these proceedings in appeal or revision equally suffer from illegality 'and are without jurisdiction."
' This position was then reaffirmed in Rashid Ahmad v. The State PLD 1972 SC 271, wherein the dictum laid down in PLD 1971 SC 197 was also reaffirmed as -under:- "Question relating purely to the jurisdiction of the Court could be raised at any stage of the proceedings." and it was further held:- "It could never be too late to admit and give effect to the plea that the order was a nullity."
' The foregoing also disposes off the objection about the delay in filing this appeal because those orders having been found to be nullities, as held in Syed Muhammad Aslam v. Syed Mehdi Hussain and 2 others PLD 1970 Lah. 6 are not governed by any prescribed limitation for purposes] of appeal.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal succeeds and is accepted. The orders of ejectment of the appellant passed by the Controller on 29-9-1977 and upheld by the Appellate Authority on 19-5-1979 are set aside and the repondents' petition for ejectment of the appellant is dismissed.
8. Since no one has put in appearance to contest this appeal, therefore, the parties are left.to bear their own costs.