This petty matter has lingered on unnecessarily for want of the learned counsel for the petitioner for one reason or the other.
2. The short background of the case is that the petitioner who was the tenant of respondent No. 1, was sought to be ejected by the latter, who filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on the 15th of October 1968 and was challenged in appeal before the lower Appellate Authority; we are not concerned however with that aspect of the matter. On the 1st of June 1968, the petitioner was examined by the learned Rent Controller as his own witness. The respondent landlord was of the view that he had deliberately perjured himself and accordingly moved the learned Rent Controller for filing a complaint against him under section 195, Cr. P. C. for his prosecution. The petition was rejected by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that in view of, Khadi/n Mohy-ud-Din etc. v. Cli. Rehmat All Nagra etc. (1), he was not a 'Court' in the technical sense but a Tribunal of special jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved the respondent landlord filed an appeal against that order before the learned Additional District Judge which too appears to have been dismissed. He however personally filed a complaint under section 193, P. P. C. These are the proceedings which are now sought to be quashed by the petitioner.
The principal ground urged before me is that assuming that the learned Rent Controller was not a Court sacrosanct and as such was not competent to file a complaint in accordance with the provisions contained in section 195 (b) of the Cr. P. C. yet from the allegations as contained in the complaint the petitioner had allegedly committed an offence under section 181 of the P. P. C. before a public servant and as such the case was covered by the provisions contained in section 195 (/)
(a) of the Cr. P. C, which lays down that no Court shall take cognisance of any such offence except on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. To this learned counsel for the respondent has no answer. Accordingly I allow this petition and quash the proceedings. .
(1) PLD 1965 SC 459