1. ' This is the lInd Rent Appeal under section 15(4) of. The West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, filed by the landlord of Plot No, 7, Sector No, 27, Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi which was originally let out by the appellant to the respondent firm for industrial purposes.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that originally a portion of the plot was let out by the appellant to the .Respondent firm on a monthly rent of Rs, 950. Subsequently by an agreement dated 7-2-1973 the appellant agreed to sell to the respondents the entire plot measuring about 2778 sq. Yds for a consideration of Rs, 1,05,000. Under para. 7 of this agreement it was provided that "in case the vendees fail to complete the sale by 30th April, 1973, this agreement shall stand terminated and in such an, event all the amounts paid by vendees to the Vendor shall be treated as advance payment towards the rent of the entire property the rent whereof is hereby fixed at Rs, 1,400 p. m."
3. Due to some problems which have remained debatable and are still unresolved and undetermined by any Court of competent jurisdiction, the sale-deed could not be registered and the appellant on the assumption that the fault was attributable to the respondents? Appropriated, the deposit of Rs, 35,5u0 towards rents and when this amount was fully consumed by about March, 1975 and further payments were not forth-coming, treated the respondents as defaulters. On 1-8-1975 the appellant filed a Rent Case No, 2652/1975 in the Court of the Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi on account of an alleged failure of the respondents for payment of rents for a period of four months .
4. 1-4-1975 to 31-7-1975 at the rate of Rs, 1400 per month. Besides, relief of ejectment of the respondents, the arrears of rents which had amounted to Rs, 5,600 till the time of application, were also claimed in this rent application. The respondents filed a written statement and denying the adverse allegations against them, questioned the maintainability of the rent application. They pleaded the agreement of purchase dated 7-2-1973 in their defence and urged that out of the sale consideration of Rs, 1,05,000 they had already paid Rs, 35,500 to the appellant, that they had remained in undisturbed possession since the date of the agreement, that the appellant had failed to perform the obligations under the agreement on account of his failure to produce the document of title and also to comply with all the conditions detailed in clause (6) of the agreement. They also asserted that the sale-deed could not be registered on account of the appellant's own conduct.
5. They were always ready and willing to perform their contract. In short the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied and the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller to entertain and adjudicate the matter was also denied. On these pleadings the learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue which is as follows "Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties ? If so what is its effect ?"
6. ' On this issue the learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence. The statement of the appellant was recorded, who admitted the execution of the agreement, the receipt of Rs, 35,500 and the possession of the respondents on the entire plot in performance of the sale agreement. But he attributed the breach of the agreement to the respondents and produced notice dated 25-4-1975, which, according to him, was sent to the respondents intimating to them that the appellant had obtained all the necessary documents and calling upon the respondents to be ready for registration of the sale-deed. He alleged that due to lack of funds the respondents could not pay the balance amount and the registration could not take place with the result that in terms of clause (7) of the agreement, the bargain of sale was closed and the respondents had become tenants liable to pay rents to the appellant at the rate of Rs, 1400 per month.
7. ' The respondents also led evidence. Rahat Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Yaseen Hashim, two partners of the respondent firm were examined on behalf of the respondents. Both of them denied that they had received any intimation or any request from the appellant informing them that he had obtained all the necessary documents and was ready and willing to execute the sale- deed. They repeated the averments which they had made in the written statement and attributed the fault entirely to the appell ant.
8. ' The learned Rent Controller on these pleadings and on the appreciation of the evidence produced before him, came to the conclusion that there was on relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in view of the agreement and part performance of the agreement of sale and undisputedpossession of the respondents on the property, their possession was further protected by section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. As a matter of fact his order suffer from excess of elaboration in as much as the learned Rent Controlled instead of confining himself to the sale- agreement, had proceeded to ,investigate the respective behaviour and conduct of the parties and recorded findings on very sensitive points of controversy which actually belonged to the jurisdiction of a regular Civil Court. In the result the application for ejectment was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 9th September, 1976, Against the order dated 9.9-1976 the appellant filed the 1st Rent Appeal which came to be disposed of by learned IV Additional District Judge, Karachi. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Karachi has dismissed this appeal, upheld the order of the learned Rent Controller and affirmed the findings. Additionally the learned 1st Appellate Court has further elaborated the defaults of the appellant by observing that appellant had failed to obtain a written permission from the K. D. A. For the transfer of the plot in terms of para 9 of the lease-deed between the appellant and the K. D. A., who were the original owners and had leased out this plot to the appellant.
9. The above discussion would show that on the point of relationship of landlord and tenant there are two concurrent findings of the two Court below against which the present IInd Appeal has been filed.
10. ' Mr. Akhtar Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Malik Muhammad Saeed learned counsel for the respondents, have addressed me on breach of the agreement of sale dated 7.2- 1973 (Exh. 5/E). The learned counsel for the appellant is pitching himself on violation of clause (7) of the agreement, while the learned counsel for the respondents heavily relyin on clause (6) of the Sale-agreement. They have in my humble opinion invited the two lower Courts to fall into an error by trespassing thei limits in investigating the question of breach'of this agreement and recording findings on the sensitive question of breach and attributing the default to the appellant. In their enthusiasm to support their respective points o view on the question of the breach of this contract, counsels have conveniently over-looked the fact that the present Ilnd Appeal is not arising out of an action for specific performance of a contract. Indeed in this very limited jurisdiction these questions which require deep study of th facts and close analysis of the surrounding circumstances resulting in the breach cannot be investigated. We have neither the means nor the mandat to undertake such an enquiry. It is well established that the Rent Controller exercising powers under a special statute is not a substitute of regular Court. His jurisdiction is confined merely to protect the possession of a tenant occupying premises let out to him and in case of dispute between a landlord and a tenant to hold an enquiry whether the tenant ha suffered any disability under section 13 (2); (3) of the Rented Premise Ordinance, thus disentitling him from the protection of the rent laws i. e. Section 13 (1) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of 1959. If during such an enquiry the tenant denies or throws away the cloak of tenancy, in my humble opinion he voluntarily rejects the protective shield of the rent laws, and as a consequence cannot be permitted to enjoy the benevolent statutory cover of the provisions of section 13 subsection (1) of the W.P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which is to the following effect :- "13. Eviction of tenant.-(1) A tenant in possession of a building of rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, or otherwise, and, whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section".
11. On account of denial of tenancy which was the only shield available to him by force of special Statute it would no more be necessary for the owner of the premises to prove that his desire to acquire possession of a property was inspired with good faith etc. Etc. Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant in rent proceedings would immediately dissolve all the clots which were obstructing free flow of rights enjoyed by an owner under the Transfer of Property Act.
12. The owner in such a situation would be free to exercise all rights incidental to his ownership of the property and he would be free to throw away the occupant without any difficulty under the normal laws of the land. In my humble opinion this is a plain and straight approach to the problem.
13. ' It must be remembered that denial of tenancy is a question of fact and not a question of law. As such an admission on the part of the tenant would amount to estoppel for all times and the tenant cannot resile from this position in any other proceeding that may be taken against him by the owner of property in any Court.
14. ' Suppose the Rent Controller chooses to follow a different course and proceeds to determine the question of relationship between the landlord and tenant even then his jurisdiction' is limited for obvious reasons. He is a persona designata exercising limited powers under a special Statute so much so that even the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act are no applicable to the proceedings before him. In such a limited jurisdiction all that is open to him is that in order to assume powers under the Act h must satisfy himself that the parties are appearing before him as landlord and tenant and not as owners and occupants or in any other capacity. He would, therefore, superficially investigate the matter and try to discover from prima facie evidence whether such a relationship exists. But if h finds that the question is involved and intricate and such a relationship I not to be found on the plain and prima facie appraisal of facts placed before him, he should abstain himself from embarking on a search of title of the owner. For instance it does not lie within the Province of the Rent Con troller to investigate which of the parties in a contract of purchase has committed breach of the contract, or in case of mortgages with option to purchase which of the parties to the contract was at fault. These are matters to be decided by a regular Civil Court. The Rent Controller can merely decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant on admitted facts. In cases where he feels that the denial of relationship b the tenant is dishonest advanced merely to delay the proceedings, he should proceed on the facts speaking loud than the dishonest plea of the tenant. Complicated issues of ownership and allegations or counter allegations o breach of agreements entered between the parties during an admitted or established tenancy can be ignored by the Rent Controller to be raised and adjudicated before the regular Courts. Issues requiring deep analysis and elaborate enquiries should be avoided as any findings recorded by Rent Controller as a result of such an enquiry would neither be desirable nor even binding on any one in any civil Court.
15. ' To revert to the facts of the case on band the Rent Controller and the 1st Appellate Court have found it after a deep enquiry that there is no relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties.
16. I have carefully read the orders of both the Courts below and am constrained to observe that both the orders .Appear to be judgments in a F suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 7-2-1973 (Exh. 5,E). Some extracts from these orders are reproduced below. The Rent Controller in his order dated 9-9-1976 observed : "Applicant's case is that he got the documents completed within time but due to lack of funds with opponents sale could not be registered. He has deposed that he had shown the documents to the advocate of opponents and served the opponents with notice but opponent failed to get the sale registered and therefore he adjusted paid amount towards rent at Rs, 1400 per month as mentioned in clause (7) of sale agreement Exh. 5-E.
17. ' Opponents have denied this position. They have stated that they had no Advocate at that time therefore showing of documents to their Advocate does not arise. Burden of this fact lies over applicant to prove that opponents were served with such notice. Applicant has failed to prove this service A/D receipt does not bear the signature of opponents. Applicant has failed to examine that Advocate who was shown documents as the opponents have denied appointment of any Advocate. Furthermore the applicant has not produced all those documents which were required to be completed so that the Court could have seen that documents were got prepared in time.
18. Mere saying that documents were not prepared would not absolve him of his duty and he cannot arbitrarily adjust the advance money of Rs, 35,500 towards rent. Opponents who have alleged to have incurred huge amount for establishing their business. Would not have waived their opportunity of getting registered sale-deed had they been informed in any way. Applicant has not disclosed all these facts of sale agreement in his rent application and now he cannot base his claim on the facts concealed by him.
19. ' It seems he has not come with clean hands in the Court. Opponents are occupying premises in case under sale agreement. Where part performance has been made and their interests are surely protected under section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act.
20. ' Under their view of the matter I come to the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between parties. Parties can move civil Court and the rent case is not maintainable under the circumstances."
21. Thus the relationship of landlord and tenant which on admission of both the parties was continuing since long, is allowed to be dissolved and replaced by a new relationship of purchaser and seller.
22. This finding I confirmed by the Ist Appellate Court also. The Rent Controller did not act on the premises of the admitted tenancy and decided to form the sale agreement as the basis of his decision. He should have stopped here and dismissed the landlord's application on account of this new relationshi which had emerged as a result of the agreement Exh. 5/E. But he did no stop here.
23. He proceeded to investigate the causes of breach of agreement, thus crossing the limits of his limited authority. The order discussed in detail the causes of the breach and responsibility for those breaches. To such an effort the learned Rent Controller entangled himself in an irretrievable position. He recorded a finding that the landlord/seller had failed to perform his obligations under the agreement. Landlords claim that he had sent notice to the tenants notifying that he had obtained all requisite documents and permission and cortificetes etc, and was fully prepared to execute the sale-deed was overruled, and the learned Rent Controller concluded his order by saying "applicant has not disclosed all these facts of sale agreement in his rent application and now he cannot base his claim on facts concealed by him It seems he has not come with clean hands in the Court,"
24. ' Mr. Akhtar Mahmud learned counsel for the appellant has attacked these findings. According to the learned counsel the inevitable result of these findings would be that the agreement of sale which was put up as a shield by the defendant/tenant falls through All the operative organs of this pulsating document stand paralysed. This document for the purposes of the proceedings before the Rent Controller should be treated as an abortive effort of sale. Learned counsel advanced an argument that as the attempted sale did not materialise, the old tenancy remained alive, Even under the agreement 'Exh. 5/E clause (7) takes care of such an eventuality. This clause also provides "that in case the vendees fail to complete the sale by 30th April, 1973, this agreement shall stand terminated and in such an event all the amount paid by vendees to the vendor shall be treated as advance payment towards rent, '
25. ' Counsel further contends that even if it is assumed that the fault is attributed to the landlord/appellant, the, agreement is clear and provides "In the event of failure on the part of the vendor to complete the sale the vendees shall be entitled of their option to sue for specific performance of the agreement and/or damages according to law."
26. ' The learned counsel contends that on the failure of the landlord/vendor the tenant has an option either to treat the bargain closed or to enforce the agreement by filing a suit for specific performance. In any event the Rent Controller should be last person to pre-empt the result or outcome of a legal battle between the parties in a civil Court. He ought to have refused to first entertain the plea of cenasion of tenancy on the basis of the agreement which was lying dormant since 30.4-1973, the last date of its performance or ought to have held that by force of clause (7) of the agreement the respondents had, become tenants of the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs, 1400 lithe effect from 20-4-1973. The upshot of the argument is that if the agreement Exh, 5/E is completely ignored the old tenancy continues, but even if the agreement is initially considered and held to be inoperative on account of breach by any of the two parties, the relationship for purposes of the proceedings before the Rent Controller would revive in terms of clause (7) of the agreement.
27. ' Mr. Malik Saeed learned counsel for the respondents meets this argument by reading clause (6) of the agreement Exh, 5/E which is as follows "That the vendor shall make out a valid, clear and marketable title of the said property, obtained and get the completion plan and lease deed of the said plot property in his favour from K. D. A, at his expenses, obtain Income-tax Clearance Certificate and all necessary certificates at his expenses, and execute and register the conveyance deed of the said property in favour of the vendees within about 3 months from the dew of this agreement."
28. ' The learned counsel then proceeds to argue that the appellant has failed to fulfil these obligations and has thus committed the breach of the agreement of sale Exh, 5/E.
29. ' In short the contention raised is that the old tenancy was terminated by the agreement of sale Exh. 51 and on account of execution of this agreement say part performance and substantial compliance of its terms by the respondent, the respondent himself became owner of the property and the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end, So far as its revival by virtue of clause
(7) of the agreement is concerned, the learned counsel contends that such fresh relationship of tenancy could be created only if the broach was attributable to the respondents. According to the learned counsel the consequences visualised by clause (7) were dependent upon performance of reciprocal obligation of the appellant in terms of clause (6) of the agreement. The learned counsel for the respondents does not stop here. He proceeds to urge that assuming without conceding that even if on tentative assessm ent it is held that the fresh tenancy has been created by virtue of clause (7) of the agreement, any order of ejectment passed in these proceedings would remain ineffective because the respondents are fully protected by section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, Counsel submits that the respondents have paid a substantial part of consideration and have been put in possession of the property and have always been and are still ready and willing to pay the balance as soon as the appallent complies with all the terms of clause (6) of the agreement, namely, he obtains permission of the K. D. A., obtains Certificate from the Income-tax Authority and offers a valid marketable title to the respondents through a Registered Sale-Deed.
30. ' Reliance is placed on the following oases in support of the contention that any ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller in this situation would by ineffective on account of the bar of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act
(1) Abdullah Bhai v. Ahmed Din PLD 1964 SC 1.06.
(2) Manzoor Hussain v. Nawazish Nazar PLD 1976 Lah.
31. 636.
(3) Kalimuddin Ansari v. Director Excite PLD 1971 SC 114.
(4) Ghulam Sakina v. (bur Bux PLD 1964 SC 456,
(5) Hassan Abbas v. Shahid Bux 1980 CLC 1442.
(6) lnayatullah v, Shah Mehmood PLD 1961 Leh, 372.
32. ' Reference may be made to only 1980 CLC 1442, which is the latest case and has relied on other cases. In this case decided by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, the following view WAR taken :- "I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that if the owner of any property agrees to sell the property to a tenant, who is in occupation thereof, but subsequently seeks ejectment of the tenant, " the tenant can, in view of the provisions of section 53-A of the 'Transfer of Property Act, successfully resist the ejectment proceedings on the score of the agreement of sale in his favour."
33. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has force and must be accepted. In the circumstances the findings that there is no If relationship of landlord and tenant between appellant and the respondent within the meaning of the Ordinance are upheld. The application for ejectment of the respondents has been rightly dismissed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 9-9-1976.
34. The appeal against that order has also been rightly dismissed by the learned IV Additional District Judge; Karachi by the judgment dated 25-4.1978.
35. ' The learned counsel for the appellant then tried to project the miserable plight of the appellant by showing that he has been denied any relief by the Rent Controller and the first appellate authority and both the Courts below have squarely fixed the blame on the appellant by a deep investigation and close analysis of the various clauses in the agreement Exh. 5/E and evidence of the parties in the case thus forestalling the fate of any Civil Suit. Not only this the tenant armed with these findings has stopped payment of rent and has also withdrawn a suit for specific performance which be had filed in the High Court.
36. I have given a serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel. So far as his apprehension about finality of findings in the orders of the learned Rent Controller and the learned IVth Additional District Judge are concerned, I was of the view that no findings recorded by the two lower Courts are of any consequence so far as the determination of breach I concerned. The powers of the Rent Controller under the Rent Act and also of the appellate authority created under this Act cannot go beyond the limits prescribed under the Act.
37. ' Under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and also under the Sind Rent Premises Ordinance, 1979 the Rent Controller has two main functions to perform. Under section 4 of Ordinance VI o 1959 he has to determine a fair rent of the premises if the dispute is brought before him. This order would be a judgment in rem and would be immune from any further attack.
38. ' The only other function, which the Rent Controller has to perform relates to eviction of a tenant from the tenanted premises and the protection provided to the tenant by section 13 (1) of the Ordinance.Of 1959. They are to the effect that the landlords right would remain dormant and suspended and unenforceable against a tenant until it is proved to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller that : "(i) the tenant has not paid or tendered rent due by him in respect of the building or rented land, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord, or in the absence of any such agreement, within sixty days from the period for which the rent is payable, or
(ii) the tenant has, without the written consent of the landlord ;
(a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof, or
(b) used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased or has infringed any condition of the tenure on which the building or rented land is held by the landlord, or
(iii) the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land, or
(iv) the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct as are a nuisance to the occupants of buildings in the. Neighbourhood, or
(y) where the building is situated in a place other than a hill station, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause, or
(vi) the building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for. The reconstruction or erection of a building on the site, and the landlord has obtained the necessary sanction for the said reconstruction or erection from the Town Improvement Trust, Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee or Town Committee for the area where such building or land is situated."
39. Any order passed by the Rent Controller or the Appellate Court determining the existence or non- existence of the incidence rights and liabilities mentioned above would be final and binding and not open to any further attack or scrutiny by any party before any Court. In the earlie Statutes on the same subject the Rent Controller was an authority to issue an ejectment certificate certifying that the tenant has suffered any of the disability and as such had lost the protection of the Rent laws. With this certificate in hand the landlord used to approach a regular Court for ejectment of the tenant. Under the new rent laws i. e. Ordinance (VI o 1959) and Sind Ordinance (XVII of 1979) the power of ejectment has also been blended with the function of issuing the ejectment certificate but the scope of authority to issue certificate is not expanded.
40. ' In my earlier judgments I have held that the finality attached to an order passed by the Controller, the appellate authority or the High Court by force of section 15 (5) of Ordinance (V1 of 1959) or to an order by the Controller or the appellate authority by force of section 21(3) of Ordinance XVII of 1979, would remain confined to the findings within the confines of powers given to these forums by the Statute. In other words the immunity granted to the orders of the authority under the Rent laws is not a blanket immunity covering any order passed by these authorities but only to such order as are germane to the exercise of power for fixation of fair rent and incidence of ability or disability prescribed by the provisions relating to ejectment. To be more precise investigating the requirements of section 13 (2), (3) of Ordinance (VI of 1959), ' Any other finding which may have been recorded collaterally for disposal of the issues under the said sections would be tentative and a casual and summary appreciation of the points of dispute between the parties. For instance the Rent Controller's opinion regarding validity of transfers of interest in the property by sale, gift, mortgage or by force of any Statute etc. With consequential change of relationship of landlords and tenant would be tentative and not conclusive.
41. ' This opinion is no more good law. The learned counsel has placed a case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in as Ramat-ullah v. Ali Muhammad (1) in which it was held 7- "I may, however, usefully add that any Tribunal or a statutory Authority exercising quasi-judicial functions when required to determine any question, which, under the law, it has the authority to determine should decide all the questions arising before it and thereby spare the parties from the ordeal of rushing from one forum to another. The findings recorded by such Tribunals on the questions adjudicated by it, subject to correction or alteration by the Appellate
(1) 1983 SCMRI064 or Constitutional forum are final and on the general principles of red judicata are not open to be re-agitated before a civil Court. Thus, the findings recorded by a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction like the Rent Controller would also be final, if they are given on the merits of the plea raised before it and will operate as res judicata. However, in the event where the Rent Controller feels that complicated question requiring a protracted inquiry would be necessary for deciding a particular question such as for instance whether a party claiming to be the owner of a poperty and is therefore the landlord of the person occupying it, cannot in view of the demands of the law to decide questions of the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant expeditiously be undertaken by him, he can observe that such a question should be decided by a Court of general jurisdiction, namely, the ordinary civil Court and this finding should be specifically recorded by him in his order, The result in practical terms accordingly may be summed up as follows. The Rent Controller who was dealing with a petition for ejectment of an occupant of a property by a party claiming to be his landlord, a claim which as based on the plea of ownership, should have proceeded to decide all the issues relevant to the said question, whith incidentally may also have included a decision on the question of title. This was done by the Rent Controller. If his appellate authority considered that a deeper and a more detailed examination of the last mentioned question was necessary for setting this matter and also found that the title of the alleged landlord did suffer from some doubt, he should in these circumstances, have dismissed the ejectment petition, leaving the appellant before him, to move the Civil Court for a declaration of his title.
42. ' As has been observed earlier that if such leave is not granted by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority while deciding the ejectment petition, the finding of such authorities even on the question of title, incidental though it may be, shall become final and will operate as res judicata, not liable to be reopened before a civil Court. However, the aggrieved party can get this omission rectified, if made by the Rent Controller, by filing an appeal and if made by the appellate authority, from the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory constitutional jurisdiction. In case these forums find that the question of title does indeed, require further examination by the civil Court and the finding of the Rent Controller or the appellate authority should not be treated as final, such a finding given by them would enable the aggrieved party to re-agitate the said question before a civil Court and in such an eventuality the bar of res judicata would not apply."
43. In view of the above dictum it is necessary to make an observation that any opinion expressed by the learned Rent Controller or the 1st Appellate Authority regarding breach of the contract and resulting transfer of interest in the property should be treated to be tentative and should not be treated K as res judicata. Either party would be free to take any appropriate action in any civil Court for redress of his grievance in connection with the agreement Exh. 5/E. In view of the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the respondent, he is not entitled to any protection of rent laws and the appellant would be at liberty to obtain possession of the premises from the respondent in due course of law.
44. ' The result is that this appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Parties are left to pursue their remedies before the competent civil Court.