' Through this Constitutional Petition, Auqaf Department through Administrator Auqaf, Bahawalpur, the petitioner, wants this Court to declare the orders, dated 17-2-1985 and 16-4-1985 passed by Rent Controller (Cantonment), Bahawalpur, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition, briefly, are that on 24-10-1984 Syed Mehmoodul Hussain, Syeda Shagufta Hussain and Syeda Farzana Ambrin, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 filed application against Auqaf Department, the petitioner, for its ejectment from properties No. C.A. 190/A and C.A- 190(old No. 12-A), situate Model Town-A, Bahawalpur, before Rent Controller (Cantonment), Bahawalpur. The petitioner entered appearance and filed written statement. On 8-12-1984, the respondents stated that the property was vacant w.e.f. 28-11-1984, so the petition shall be dismissed. On 7-1-1985, the learned Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent within one month. This order was not complied with, so, the learned Rent Controller passed following order:- "(1) Defence of the respondents in the subject case is struck off. The respondents are ordered to be evicted and the landlords are ordered to be put in possession of Bungalow No. 12-A (CA-190 and CA-190-A), Model Town-A, Bahawalpur Cantt formally with immediate effect.
(2) The respondents should pay the balance rent due in respect of the suit property at the rate of Rs.5,000 p.m. To the petitioners till its formal handing over. The petitioner may recover the rent due through the proper civil Court.
(3) Parties shall bear their own costs.
' Instead of filing appeal against this order, the petitioner filed review application before the Rent Controller (Cantonment), Bahawalpur on 17-3-1985, which was dismissed on 16-4-1985, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that since the petitioner/tenant did not contest the application and had vacated the property on 28-11-1984, therefore, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass impugned order, dated 17-2-1985 and could not have directed the petitioner to pay the balance rent due in respect of the suit property @ Rs.5,000 p.m. To the landlord.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the orders impugned in this petition were appealable under section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 and the petitioner could file appeal against these orders within 30 days of such orders. Instead of filing appeal, the petitioner have filed writ petition after about 4 months of the last order, dated 16-4- 1985; that the learned Rent Controller has stated in his order that the vacant possession of the property was not formally handed over to the landlords/respondents, and that there is nothing on record to show that the vacant possession of the property was physically handed over to the landlords/respondents by the petitioner/tenant on 28-11-1984 or before passing of the order, dated 17-2-1985 and that admittedly, the petitioner/tenant has not complied with the order, dated 7-1- 1985, whereby he was directed to deposit the arrears of rent within one month.
5. For what has been said above, I do not see any justification to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.