' This first rent appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) has been filed by appellant Dr. Muhammad Saeed against the order dated 29-3-1986 passed under section 16(2) of the Ordinance.
2. Facts are that respondent Mrs. Parveen Hilaluddin filed Rent Case No, 3597of 1984 under section 15 of the Ordinance on the ground of default in payment of rent. The written statement was filed by appellant and respondent No,
2. The respondent No, 1 landlady, filed an application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance. The Rent Controller by an order dated 23-5-1985 passed tentative rent order whereby respondent No, 2, Ciba Giegy (Pakistan) Limited was directed to deposit the arrears of the rent with effect from May 1984 upto August 1985 amounting to Rs, 67,500 on or before 10th October.
It was further directed that respondent No, 2 to deposit future monthly rent on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The order of the Rent Controller was not complied with, therefore, he has struck off the defence.
3. Mr, Gul Zaman Khan Advocate for the appellant at the outset has submitted that point of jurisdiction is involved in the rent case which has not been decided by the Rent Controller, therefore, he was not competent to pass tentative rent order in the proceedings. He has referred to the cases reported in 1985 CLC 364 and PLD 1974 SC 124. It is argued that the orders passed under sections 16(1) and 16(2) are bad in law.
4. Mr. Nasim. Farooqi raised the following points
(1) That appellant has no locus standi to file the appeal.
(2) The order of the Rent Controller is against the respondent No, 2 who has not challenged the order.
' He has referred to the cases reported in 1984 CLC 1118 and 1981 CLC 212.
5. In rent application, respondent No, 2, Ciba Giegy (Pakistan) Limited and appellant Dr. Muhammad Saeed were made party. They both filed separate written statements. Appellant was in service of respondent No, 2 and he used the premises by virtue of his employment of respondent No,
2. The agreement was between Mrs. Parveen Hilaluddin landlady and Ciba Giegy (Pakistan)
Limited. On expiry of lease agreement, the possession was not handed over to owner.
' Respondent No, 2 in his written statement admitted the relationship but stated that appellant's services were terminated and he was entitled to be in possession upto 30th April, 1984 and on or after 1st May, 1984 the appellant was under a duty to vacate the premises and hand over to the landlady but in breach of his obligations as the licensee he wrongfully continued in possession and now trespassed.
6. Appellant in his written statement admitted the agreement between respondent No, 1 and respondent No, 2 but stated that he had all along been in possession of the premises but later on landlady refused to receive the rent from him with mala fide intention. In para. 9, he states as under :- "That no cause of action accrued to the applicant for filing this case against appellant (opponent No, 2). It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain these proceedings. The application is liable to be dismissed with special cost."
7. Application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance was filed on 23-5-1985 and Rent Controller, directed respondent No, 2 (company) to deposit arrears of rent with effect from May 1984 upto August 1985 amounting to Rs, 67,500 on or before 10th October. It was further ordered that future monthly rent to be deposited on or before 10th of succeeding month.
8. Appellant made an application on 21-10-1985 under Order XI, rule 14, C. P. C. In which it was requested to direct respondent No, 2 to produce lease agreements etc. As company has requested for disconnection of his telephone. This application was supported by affidavit of appellant. Dr. Muhammad Saeed who in his affidavit stated that he is old tenant of (applicant) respondent No, 1 and rent of May and June 1984 was duly sent to applicant by cheque dated 9-5-1984 which was refused with ma/a fide intention just to create a ground of default. He has also stated that applicant (landlady) tried to dispossess him but he filed civil suit and got injunction from the Court of Civil Judge Karachi.
9. Appellant also made an application of review of rent order in which he requested the Controller that he (appellant) may be directed to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future monthly rent.
This application was also supported by an affidavit of appellant. His application was dismissed by the Rent Controller by an order dated 6-3-1986.
10. There are some facts which are not disputed. Appellant is in possession of premises through his employer and there is no agreement between appellant and respondent No,
1. The services of appellant have been terminated and respondent No, 2 are not interested in holding the possession.
There is no direct relationship between appellant and landlady. The rent for the premises is not being paid. There is clear violation of tentative rent order as respondent No, 2 neither paid arrears nor future rents and they have not filed appeal against ejectment order passed under section 16(2) of the Ordinance. While hearing the appeal appellant was asked to deposit arrears and future rent with Rent Controller but Mr. Gul Zaman did not agree. Mr. N. A. Farooqi frankly stated at the Bar that in case rent is deposited in terms of tentative rent order the case be remanded. Mr. Gul Zaman appearing for the appellant argued that since Rent Controller has no jurisdiction, the order passed by the Rent Controller is ab initio bad in law.
11. Appellant filed his written statement on 27-4-1985. He has not taken the ground that Rent Controller has no jurisdiction nor he submitted any document in support but at appellate stage learned counsel has argued that premises are within cantonment areas. Therefore, provisions of Cantonment Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1963 will apply to the proceedings and Rent Controller under Sind Rented Premises Ordinance has no juris. Diction. He has placed reliance on a case of I. S. G. A. Ltd. v. Mst. Rift Fakhir (1). Presently there is no evidence to this effect. This point can be taken on the basis of documents when issue is to be framed but no such application was made by the appellant to the Rent Controller. Rent case has not proceeded. In the meanwhile application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance was filed on 23-5-1985 and appellant filed two applications {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1985 CLC 364 {{FOOT NOTE}} on 21-10-1985 one under Order XI, rule 14 and other for review of order. He stated in the affidavits that on 9-5-1984 he tendered rent and admits to be the tenant. He has not raised objection of jurisdiction. He submits to the jurisdiction of Rent Controller at this stage, therefore, Rent Controller has rightly not touched this point in tentative rent order or in order passed under section 16(2). In the above-cited case 1985 CLC 364 in para. 6 of judgment it is held as under "6. In the case referred to above, it was no doubt, held that a person having submitted to the jurisdiction of an authority could, not take exception to the jurisdiction he had submitted to. But in all the cases the concerned authorities did have jurisdiction under the relevant law but that jurisdiction could not be considered in these particular cases."
' Had any objection been raised before the Rent Controller he could have taken it into consideration.
12. Now I revert to the locus standi of appellant to file appeal. Appellant has possession of demised premises through his employer/ company/tenant. The ejectment of company automatically includes ejectment of appellant. Now appellant on one hand wants to keep possession and claims to be the tenant strictly in terms of the Ordinance and volunteered to pay -arrears and rent before the Rent Controller, but when he is afforded opportunity by this Court to plead his case before Rent Controlled but deposit the rent. He declined. On this I refer to case reported in 1981 CLC 212 and come to the conclusion that he has no right to file appeal. In case of Nazar Ahmed v. Seth Karim (I) it is held as under :- "On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Mahmoodi that appellant has no locus standi to file the appeal as he was not the tenant and not even sub-tenant according to the findings of the learned Controller, and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.
' Mr. Mahmoodi has pointed out that the respondent has accepted Mst. Ghulam Kubra as his tenant as her request made by her in he letter, dated 3rd September, 1971 Exh. A-4. The plea taken in the written statement was that deceased tenant had left several children and in view of this plea the present appellant could not be successor or a legal representative, and the sons had not applied for being joined as a party or claimed any right or interest in the tenancy any stage.
' I agree with Mr. Mahmoodi that this appeal by the present appellant is not maintainable as he was neither the tenant nor the legal representative of deceased tenant,"
13. The appeal of Dr. Muhammad Saeed/appellant is also not' maintainable. 1, therefore, dismiss this appeal and maintain the order of C Rent Controller, {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1984 C C 1118 {{FOOT NOTE}} revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.