1. ' ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C.J.--The present petition has been filed by Mehtabur Rehman to challenge some proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance before the Controller-cum-Civil Judge, Court No.16, Karachi. The District and Sessions Judge, Karachi. The Government of Sind and the landlady Mst.Sarwar Begum have been impleaded as the respondents. We had issued pre- admission notice and Mr.Nasrullah Awan has appeared on behalf of respondent No.4.
2. ' The brief facts are that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of a residential premises belonging to Mst. Sarwar Begum who for the sake of convenience is hereinafter referred to as the landlady. We are informed that the case for ejectment was filed by the landlady against the petitioner in 1979 which was decided by the XVIII Senior Civil Judge/Controller on 15-2-1982. The petitioner was ordered to be evicted. An appeal was filed before this Court which was registered as F.R.A.
3. No.494/82 and this appeal also did not succeed. We are informed that no petition for special leave to appeal had been filed against this decision.
4. ' The only point that has been raised before us by Mr.Faizuddin is in regard to jurisdiction of Mr.Ali Sher Habibani the XVI Senior Civil Judge, Karachi. His contention as far as we have been able to understand is that by virtue of section 4 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, territorial jurisdiction of the Controllers is to be regulated and conferred by an order or notification of the Government and t Government had not designated Mr. Ali Sher as a Rent Controller exercise jurisdiction within the city of Karachi where the premises dispute are situated and for such reason the order of eviction that h been passed is nullity in law.
5. ' It seems such a point was raised before Mr.Justice Zahoor Haq when he was hearing the Rent Appeal bearing F.R.A. No.482/8 The point did not find favour with the learned Judge who has de with the point in the following words:- "Thereafer, Mr.Moinuddin submitted that the Rent Controller who decided the case has no jurisdiction in this matter. I failed to understand the logic of this argument. No such plea had be raised by the appellant before the Rent Controller and' no such plea has been' raised in this appeal and, therefore,' I do not find any justification for allowing this argument at this stage The same would otherwise be misconceived as the Rent Controller who decided this case was a Civil Judge functioning at Karachi In any case the question, whether the Rent Controller who want seized of a matter, had been invested with such power by the Government under section 4 is always a question of fact which has to be pleaded and controverted and no decision can be given without pleading of the same as it involves an investigation into question of fact. This plea is, therefore, complete the unjustified and afterthought merely to avoid the effect of the ejectment more particularly so when the ejectment of the other tenant Jamir Ahmed has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P.S.L.A. No.8-K/84 decided on 2-2-1984. Consequently I do not find any force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed."
6. ' At this stage we would also mention that there was an identicate case relating to another portion of the same premises which is occupation of the petitioner, and Jamil Ahmed was the tenant in respect of such remaining premises. The said Jamil Ahmed had also filed petition before the Supreme Court which was registered as CPSLA No.8- of 1984. We are informed that this petition has been dismissed. Now if the point in regard to lack of jurisdiction has been urged before Mr Justice Zahoorul Haq then the only remedy available to the petitioner was to move the Supreme Court by way of a petition which admitted has not been done. On the other hand in this petition the petitioner has necessarily got to challenge such portion in the order of Mr Justice Zahoorul Haq as related to jurisdiction of the Controller who tried this case. We cannot even entertain such a question because .Mr.Justice Zahoorul Haq being a Judge of this Court, we cannot issue a writ or pass an order relating to his order or even grant a declaration in the constitutional jurisdiction on the sound principle that the High Court cannot issue a writ to itself.
7. ' Since we had permitted Mr.Faizuddin to raise this point we find it necessary to make a brief reference to some enactments and notifi cations which are relevant. Section 4 of the Rented Premises Ordinance is pertinent to the controversy and it is better' to reproduce the same. it reads as follows:- "(4). Controllers.--(1) Government may appoint one or more Controllers in any district and if more than one Controller is appointed in the same district, Government shall define the local limits within which each of such Controllers shall exercise juris dcition: ' Provided that the Controllers working immediately before coming into force of this Ordinance shall continue to exercise their respective territorial jurisdiction until it has been altered by Government.
8. (2)No person shall be appointed as a Controller unless he has worked or, has been working, as a Civil Judge or First Class Magistrate, for not less than three years.
(3) Government may authorize the District Judge or Deputy Commissioner, to transfer cases from one Controller to another within the District."
9. ' In the scheme of section 4 it would appear that the power of appointment vests in the Government and the Government has to appoint controllers in all districts. Such Controllers if they are to be more an one in a single district shall be conferred the jurisdiction to try cases under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. Qualifications of the controller are stated in subsection (2).
10. Subsection (3) of the said action again gives powers to the-District Judge to transfer cases from ne Controller to another within the District. In pursuance of the owners under section 4 the Government of Sind issued a Notification hearing No. VIII (3) SOJ/75 on 14th October, 1980. This notification ads as follows:- "No. VIII(3) SOJ/75.-- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the Government of Sind are pleased to appoint ALL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGES in the Province and CIVIL JUDGE, 'Badin and JOINT CIVIL JUDGE, Shikarpur with not less than three years service as CIVIL JUDGE, to act as .CONTROLLERS within their respective jurisdiction."
11. ' Shorn of the details which are not relevant to the instant case is notification can be read as follows:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the Government of Sind are pleased to appoint all Senior Civil Judges in the Province to act as Controllers within their respective jurisdiction."
12. ' A bare reading of this notification would bring it out with clarity what all such persons who are holding the post of Senior Civil Judges have by virtue of this notification issued under section 4 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the jurisdiction to act as Controllers within their respective jurisdiction. The words "respective jurisdiction" would mean and imply that area within which the Senior Civil Judge exercises his power under the Code of Civil Procedure. The argument taken to its logical conclusion can bear no other result except that if a person can exercise civil jurisdiction in any part or portion of the Province he can exercise the powers of a Controller also within that part or portion of the province. The second necessary significance of this notification is that if a person is once appointed a Senior Civil Judge the powers of Controller under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance would be vested in him. He shall .continue to enjoy those powers, unless he is divested of the powers of a Senior Civil Judge. In these circumstances the argument of Mr.Faizuddin that because Mr.Ali Sher Habibani was the Senior Civil Judge at Shikarpur and when he came to Karachi he had to be reinvested with powers is completely fallacious and has not impressed us.
13. ' Mr.Faizuddin has also placed before us an office order passed by the District Judge, Karachi on 29-11-1982 whereby territorial juris diction has been changed in respect of some Controllers including Mr. Habibani. Without doubt these powers of change of jurisdiction is in essence transfer of a case, for when the territorial jurisdiction of a judicial Officer is changed the effect which is aimed at is that the Judge should not try such cases as arise in the "jurisdiction of the portion of the province where he is posted. This is nothing more than transfer of cases individually or collectively.
14. There can be no tw opinions that subsection (3) of section 4 of the Rented Premises Ordinance gives a power to the District Judge to transfer any case and when a power to do an act is conferred on a functionary the repetitive exercise of power in pursuance of such powers are also permitted. By this notification the District Judge has transerred cases collectively and this power does flow from subsection (3) of section 4 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. Even this contention has not impressed us.
15. ' We, therefore, see no substance in this petition which we dismiss in limine.
16. ' By consent the petitioner is granted 15 days time as from the signing of this order to vacate the premises.