ABDUL QADEER CHAUDURY, J.---The petitioner filed two ejectment applications against the tenant who was occupying two separate portions of the property in question. In the written statement, the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. The learned Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). The Rent Controller passed an order dated 9-9-1985 regarding ejectment of the respondent from the suit property for non-compliance with the order made under the Ordinance.
2. An appeal was filed by the respondent before the learned District Judge. The appeal was accepted by the learned District Judge on the ground that there did not exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therefore, no ejectment order could be validly passed on account of non-compliance of the order made under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The case was, therefore, remanded for deciding the issue of relationship between the parties. After remand of the case, the learned Rent Controller framed an issue on the point of existence of relationship of landlord between the parties. By means of order dated 19-9-1985 the Rent Controller dismissed the application that it was pre-mature and that same had been filed without obtaining permission of the Custodian of the Evacuee Property. The Additional District Judge on appeal upheld the Rent Controller's order vide order dated 9-2-1988. These orders were challenged before the learned High Court in the Writ Petition. The learned High Court passed the following order:- "The fate of the petitioners hings on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Insurance Co. v. Nawa-i-Waqt Publications (PLD 1968 SC 215). The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have sealed the fate of the petitioners on the basis of that judgment. It contemplates that no person in occupation of the property whether as a tenant or otherwise would be evicted from the property without permission of the Custodian Evacuee property. The learned counsel wants me to find out loop holes or the way out for the petitioners to get rid of their tenants.
I am afraid I will not be undertaking such an exercise in all propriety and it is for the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court for clarification of the judgment including the ground of altered scheme of law with the repeal of the evacuee laws. The case is pended for this purpose for a period of six weeks."
3. The petitioner has assailed the judgment of the High Court. It has been contended by the learned counsel that it was the duty of the learned High Court to decide the question raised before it in a case. The question of law raised by the petitioner in the writ petition challenged the legality of the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court be disposed of after hearing both the parties. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has force that the learned High Court was fully competent to give its decision on the points raised, after examining the pleas advanced before it. Directing a party to approach this Court for clarification of the previous judgment of this Court is not permissible under law and it amounts to refusal to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. The learned High Court may also consider the import of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Lakshmi Insurance Co. v. Nawa-i- Waqt, Publications PLD 1968 SC 215 and decide the case in accordance with law.
The petition is, therefore, converted into an appeal and is allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.