' The petitioner through this writ petition seeks a declaration that the order dated 18-9-1982 and 19- 12-1982 as merged into the final order dated 4-6-1983 passed by the learned Rent Controller Lahore and the order dated 6-12-1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that respondent No.1 filed an ejectment petition for the eviction of respondent No.2 from the upper flat of property No.122 Multan Road Lahore, on various grounds.
3. The respondent No.2 resisted the ejectment application by maintaining that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between him and respondent No.l.
4. The learned Rent Controller on a preliminary issue that whether "there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties" gave his finding in favour of respondent No.1 vide his order dated 18-9-1982 whereafter the learned Rent Controller passed an order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 requiring respondent No.2 to deposit the arrears as well as the future rent.
5. During the pendency of the application the petitioner-firm filed an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. before the learned Rent Controller for impleading it as a party in the ejectment petition, the notice of which was given to respondent No.1 who contested the same. Thereafter the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application so made by holding that since he had already determined the relationship of landlord and tenant as existing between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, therefore, he was not prepared to re-enter upon the subject because that would tantamount to a reviewing of his earlier order dated 18-9-1982 which power he lacked.
6. The learned Rent Controller after resolving certain issues on merits, ultimately accepted the application for ejectment and ordered the eviction of respondent No.2 vide his order dated 4-6- 1983.
7. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order rejecting his application and the final order of ejectment, filed an appeal which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the learned Rent Controller had found the relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 which had totally excluded the petitioner from the field and even otherwise its petition on the aspect to be impleaded as a party was turned down, as such the order on the preliminary issue on 21-9-1982 became final to its extent, so the petitioner should have challenged the same on merits.
As to the other aspect of the appeal the learned Additional District Judge observed that the learned Rent Controller rightly held the relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 as existing and after discussing the evidence he was of the opinion that since the petitioner was out of the field, as such, the appeal was without any force. He dismissed the same vide his order dated 6-12-1983.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has only contended that the order dated 19-12-1982 whereby the application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. made by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, was not signed by the learned Rent Controller, therefore, the order had no value in the eye of law and as such the application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. was to be deemed as pending and yet not disposed of which had the effect of vitiating the ejectment order. As to the essentiality of signing an order or judgment the learned counsel has relied upon Lacchman Das v.
Central Government of Pakistan and another PLD 1973 SC 379 ir which it was held:- "The requirement that orders of Courts ought to be publicly made and announced is not only a matter of accepted judicial procedure, but is invariably a requirement of law regulating the functioning of civil and criminal Courts. The Tribunal constituted under Act XII of 1957 was admittedly neither a civil nor a criminal Court and there was apparently no statutory or legal requirement as to the mode in which its orders were to be promulgated. In the absence of such a requirement it is difficult to hold that the order, which was duly made, signed and dated by the members of the Tribunal before the expiry of its terms, would stand invalidated or would be rendered in effective, simply for the reason that it could not be publicly announced on a Sunday particularly where no doubt was expressed as to the genuineness or the authenticity of the order of the Tribunal."
' This decision the learned counsel has cited to show that the order as a matter of course is to be signed and dated by the Members of Tribunal. Next reliance is on Nisar Ahmad v. Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court PLD 1976 Lah. 1162, in which it has been observed that the provisions of Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C., thus leave no doubt that the judgment of Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall include various matters as mentioned therein. It has to be pronounced and signed at the same time and has to be dated. The Labour Court is also an appellate Court and, therefore, it must conform to these requisites before it can import validity to its judgments. The last citation is Nazar Abbas Khan etc. v. Government of Pakistan etc. PLD 1981 Lah. 237, in this decision the above- quoted decision of Nisar Ahmad v. Presiding Officer was relied upon as to the requisites of a judgment that, that was to be in writing, signed and publicly announced.
9. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 while resisting this writ petition has submitted that the Code of Civil Procedure i.e. Order XX, rule 3 which requires a judgment to be dated and signed by the Judge in the open Court at the time of pronouncing the same, is not applicable to the proceedings before a Rent Controller and if at all the principle enunciated in this rule is to be acted upon then it could only be regarded as an irregularity for which no order is to be reversed unless the case stands affected on merits or the jurisdiction. The principle in this regard can be had by invoking section 99, C.P.C. For the proposition he has relied upon Firm Gokal Chand-Jagan Nath v.
Firm Nand Ram Das-A tma Ram AIR 1938 P C 292 wherein a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court after giving his judgment went on leave without signing the same, it was held viewing Order XLI, rule 31, sections 99 and 108, C.P.C. that the defect was merely an irregularity not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court and was no ground for setting aside the decree.
Ch. Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan v. The Custodian of the Evacuee Property West Pakistan & others PLD 1964 SC 865 in which it has been observed that an objection as to the procedure has force only if prejudice is caused unless there is some strict statutory provision which vitiates proceedings in case of non-compliance; Abdur Rahim v. Taj Muhammad PLD 1970 Lah. 294, in this case it has been held that since there is no regular procedure prescribed for writing, pronouncement and delivery of judgments in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 the principle embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure can be borrowed with advantage the rules of which do not lay down the law that if the requirements are not complied with the judgment or order shall be a nullity. Order XX, rules 1, 2 and 3 and Order XLI, rule 31, were viewed.
' The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has next submitted that though the order rejecting the application is not signed by the learned Rent Controller yet in the order sheet, the order dated 19- 12-1982 mentions, "according to the order of even date the application under Order I, rule 10 is dismissed". This order is initialled by the learned Rent Controller, therefore, it cures the irregularity of not signing the main order which is otherwise in the handwriting of the learned Rent Controller.
Reliance is placed on Makhan Singh and others v. Wadawa Singh and others AIR 1934 Lah. 763, in this case an order was passed in execution that an application was time-barred but the order though dated was not signed. A vernacular order was written on the same day which merely recited the fact of the dismissal of the application for execution for reasons given in an English order and that vernacular order was initiated by the Judge. It was held:- "The omission being an accidental one and the order of the executing Court having been repeated by the Judge in his vernacular order, it must be held to be binding on the decree holder who should have appealed against if he wanted to get rid of its effect and he cannot attack the order in subsequent proceedings.:'
' His last submission is that the unsigned order merges into the order of the learned Additional District Judge whereby the petitioner was heard.
10. This writ petition can be decided upon its own facts. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 19-12-1982 of the learned Rent Controller is in his handwriting. This order as it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 finds its mention in the Order-sheet wherein it is stated that the application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. stands dismissed. This order is duly initialled or signed. This fixes the order in question though by itself unsigned as having been passed by the learned Rent Controller.
11. From the main order of ejectment the petitioner also filed an appeal. It was not the case of the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge that the order was not signed by the learned Rent Controller and as such that did not have the effect of disposing of the application made under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. by the petitioner. On the other hand he argued against the order so passed on merits, therefore, the order of the learned Rent Controller even if it suffers from any irregularity it merges into the order of the learned Additional District Judge passed in appeal, so after the decision of the learned Additional District Judge in appeal on the same question, the application made by the petitioner under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. cannot be regarded as yet pending and not disposed of. This writ petition, there fore, is dismissed but there is no order in the circumstances of this case as to costs.