' Ghulam Rasool petitioner was a tenant under Said Rasool, respondent No,1 in respect of property No,33-Shadman Colony, Lahore on a rent of Rs,4100/- per month. On 21st of May, 1987 a petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was filed by the respondent against the petitioner. During the pendency of this petition, on 22-3-1988, an order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was passed by the Rent Controller, directing the petitioner to deposit the rent from October, 1987 to March, 1988. There is no dispute that this order was not complied with by the petitioner with the result that his defence was struck off on 7-4-1989. The learned Rent Controller, further directed that the petitioner was liable to pay rent at the agreed rate of Rs,4,100 from October, 1987 till the date of the order, in all Rs, 62,490 which should be paid to the respondent.
' As no payment in terms of the order passed by the Rent Controller, was made, an application for execution of the order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs,62,490 was filed by respondent No,1 before the Rent Controller. During the course of those proceedings, an objection petition was filed by the petitioner in which he stated that the Rent Controller had- no jurisdiction to direct the payment of any rent and the order passed in this behalf was not executable. These objections were repelled by the Rent Controller on 7-1-1989. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 14-4-1989. The petitioner has now invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rent Controller being a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction could only direct the eviction of the petitioner but no order as regards the recovery of rent could be passed in favour of respondent No,1. According to the learned counsel, direction to deposit or pay the rent was, in any case, not executable and, therefore, the amount could not be recovered through the process of execution by the Rent Controller.
' The learned counsel for respondent No,1, however, maintained that the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to pass such an order which could be enforced by him under section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
3. The questions which falls for consideration in the present case, are as to whether the Rent Controller while passing the order under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, can also direct the payment/deposit of arrears of rent by the tenant and further as to whether such a direction can be enforced by the Rent Controller by process of execution.
' Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance as it originally stood provided by section 13(6) of the Ordinance, that the Rent Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as also future monthly rent during the pendency of the ejectment petition under section 13. The penalty provided for default in compliance with the order was that the defence was liable to be struck off.
However, by section 5(b) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (Amendment)
Ordinance XXX of 1960, section 13(6) was amended and the following provision was added to it : "The Controller shall finally determine the amount of rent due from the tenant and direct that the same may be paid to the landlord, subject to adjustment of the approximate amount deposited by the tenant."
' This amendment clearly brought about a change in law. Whereas under the unamended provision the Rent Controller was empowered to direct the deposit of arrears as well as future rent during the pendency of the petition, there was no power vested in him for determination of the rent finally. However, by amendment a specific power was conferred upon the Rent Controller to determine the amount of rent due from the tenant and also to direct its payment to the, landlord. In face of this unambiguous provision, it cannot be contended with any success that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to determine finally the amount of rent due from the tenant and to direct its payment to the landlord.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the object as provided in the preamble of the said Ordinance, was to restrict in public interest increase in rent of certain premises within the limits of urban areas and the eviction of the tenant therefrom and the Ordinance does not concern itself with the recovery of rent by the landlord for which his only remedy was before the Civil Courts of general jurisdiction. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted as a whole. Although the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, on the one hand places restriction on the landlord not to unilaterally increase the rent and also restricts the eviction of the tenants but it also ensures the prompt payment of the rent by the tenant to the landlord. It was with this object in view, that the provisions of section 13(6) were enacted and amendment in the subsection was brought about. One of the objects underlying subsection (6) of section 13 is that the applicant who makes the application for ejectment should be spared the lengthy and expensive course of instituting a separate suit for recovery of arrears and the rent due during the pendency of the said application. Such an order is necessary not only for placing effective curb on the tendency of the tenant to prolong the ejectment petition but also to ensure that the rights of the landlord are sufficiently safeguarded.
5. The learned counsel next argued that the order under section 13(6) passed by the Rent Controller, to pay rent to the landlord was not executable under section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. He relied upon Aurangzeb v. Baidishi Mahmood Ali (PLD 1961 (W.P.)
Lahore 619) and B. M. Rashid v. Mrs. Razia Abbas Ahmad (PLD 1971 Kar. 468). This contention of the learned counsel is devoid of merits. Section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 ordains that every order passed by the Rent Controller under sections 10, 13 and 13-B and every order passed in appeal under section 15 shall be executed by the Rent Controller as if it were a decree of the Civil Court. By fiction of the deeming clause the order passed inter alia under section 13 of the Ordinance is to be taken by Rent Controller as a decree of the Civil Court and has to be executed by him as such. The words 'every order' made under section 13 are sufficient in themselves to embrace all orders which are final in nature in contemplation of section 13 of the Ordinance. One of the orders which a Rent Controller is empowered to pass is regarding final determination of rent and its payment by the tenant to the landlord as envisaged by the later part of section 13(6) which was, as already pointed out, introduced by the amending Ordinance of 1960.
6. As regards the case of Aurangzeb v. Bakhshi Mahmood Ali (PLD 1961 (W.P.) Lah. 619), it is to be noticed that it deals with the law as it originally stood prior to amendment by Ordinance XX of 1960 and, therefore, does not advance the case of the petitioner. The reliance on B. M. Rashid's case in inapt. In that case the dispute was as regards the court-fee payable on appeal against the order striking off of the defence of the tenant. In that context it was observed that order under section 13(6) for deposit of rent is not a final order executable within the meaning of section 17 of the Ordinance. The question as to whether the Rent Controller can pass a final order determining the rent payable and direct its payment by the tenant to the landlord was not in issue and was not examined by the Court. This case is, therefore, not of any assistance in resolving the present controversy. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashfaq ur Rehman vs. Ch. Muhammad Afzal PLD 1968 S. C. 230) are instructive and clearly demolished the argument being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. While interpreting sections 13(6) and 17 of the Ordinance, it was observed that :-- "... Deposit of 'all the rent due' and its payment to the landlord is not dependent on the ultimate decision on the action before the Rent Controller. For example the application for eviction may be dismissed, but the rent found due shall be paid to the landlord and in default such an order shall under section 17 be executed by a Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area as if it were a decree of that Court. To this extent the determination of 'all the rent due' in subsection (6) of section 13 by the Rent Controller is in the nature of an adjudication by a Court in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent..."
' Similarly, it will be useful to refer to the authority of the Supreme Court in Syed Akhlaque Hussain v.
Habib Ismail Bajwa, Advocate (1974 SCM R 504) wherein it was observed that : "...The learned Judges were right when they said that it was the duty of the Rent Controller to finally determine the rent. They were, however, not correct when they said that the passing of the order of eviction by the Rent Controller had the effect of making the Rent Controller functus officio so that he could not thereafter finally determine the rent..."
7. In view of these authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, there can be no doubt that the proceedings before the Rent Controller do not end with the passing of an order of eviction under section 13 of the Ordinance but even after having passed such an order the Rent Controller can still determine the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord. In fact, as observed by the Supreme Court in Syed Akhlaque Hussain's case supra, it is the duty of the Rent Controller to finally determine the rent payable.
' As a result of what has been stated above, this writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 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.