This appeal under section 15(4) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is directed against the judgment of learned District Judge, Mirpurkhas, dated 31-7-1968 whereby he allowed the appeal of the respon--dent and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Rent Controller and remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller for decision on merits on the question, whether the appellant is entitled to evict the respondent on the ground of willful default in payment of rent?
2. The facts shortly are that the premises bearing City Survey No. 220 situated in Hirabad, Mirpurkhas was declared as non-evacuee property in favour of respondent Smt. Assudi Bai by the Custodian Department and these facts are not disputed. The appellant alongwith some other persons were in occupation of premises as tenants of the Custodian. After declaration of the property as non-evacuee the respondent filed an application under section 4 of Rent Restriction Ordinance before the Rent Controller, Mirpurkhas for fixation of fair rent. This application however was dismissed on the ground that there was no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties by the Rent Controller on 31-3-62. An appeal was preferred by the respondent which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Mirpurkhas on 10-9-1963 holding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It so happened that only one, out of 16 tenants, challenged the order of the learned District Judge before this Court, which was allowed on 25-1-1965. My learned brother Mr. Justice Qadeeruddin Ahmed, while setting aside the appellate order of the learned District Judge has observed that the over-all conclusion in this appeal is accep--tance and the judgment of the learned District Judge, Tharparkar, dated 10th of September 1963, is set aside to the extent that it relates to the present appellant and the premises occupied by him. In other words his Lordship while setting aside the judgment of the learned District Judge with regard to one and not other 15, her sons who have not challenged the order of the lower Appellate Court, hence judgment of the first Appellate Court remained undisturbed with regard to relationship of the landlord and tenantl on 15 persons who did not come before this Court.
3. Thereafter Smt. Assudi Bai the respondent filed an eject--ment application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance against the present appellant and 3 other persons on the ground of non--payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller however after framing preliminary issues with regard to relationship of the landlord and tenant, came to the conclusion that finding of the learned District Judge, Tharparkar, dated 10-9-1963 in the prior proceedings between the parties was "not correct, without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law and therefore not binding on him and he was bound to ignore it and not to look it at all". He accordingly dismissed the ejectment application of the respondent landlady. This order was challenged for the second time before the learned District Judge, Tharparkar at Mirpurkhas who set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remanded the case to the Rent Controller to decide it on merits as observed earlier.
4. The impugned order was attacked mainly on the ground that previous order of the learned District Judge, Mirpurkhas dated 10-9-1963 was not based on evidence but it was a statement of law hence it could be agitated in any subsequent proceedings, and that the learned First Appellate Court has not only allowed the appeal but has also decided the complete case by holding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, that the learned District Judge has wrongly interpreted section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 because this section is for the benefit of the tenants and not so exhaustive as that of C. P. C. I am afraid these grounds raised by counsel for the appellant have not impressed me at all. The counsel for the appellant conceded that the relationship between the 14 appellants exists as has been upheld by this Court in the judgment referred earlier because the Appellate order of the learned District Judge B was not challenged in appeal, therefore this question could not be agitated by the appellants before the Rent Controller and in my opinion the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge, Tharparkar, dated 31-7-1968 is quite proper and according to law.
5. I may observe that the order of Rent Controller Mr. S. Abdur Rehman, dated 10-1-1968 whereby he purported to set aside the first appellate order of the learned District Judge, dated 10-9-63 is no order in the eye of law as he proceeded beyond powers vested in him particularly his observa-- tions that, "I therefore hold that the judgment of the learned District Judge could not create any relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties. On the contrary the facts are as enunciated in the judgment proved that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties" and his other observation that "the decision of the learned District Judge is therefore nullity and without jurisdiction in the eyes of law" to say the least are most discourteous unfortunate and uncalled for. The Rent Controller must remember that it is not for him to comment upon the judgment of a superior Court and come to the conclusion that it is not bind--ing on him.
For all purposes the Rent Controller was bound to obey the judgment of the Appellate Court. The Rent Controller is constitutionally bound to obey and respect the orders of the learned District Judge, the Appellate Court.
6. I therefore uphold the Appellate order of the learned District Judge, Tharparkar, dated 31-7-1968 and dismiss this appeal with costs. A warning .Nay be issued to Mr. S. Abdur Rahman, Civil Judge First Class and Rent Controller, Mirpurkhas to be very careful in future while writing judgments. His observations if necessary, must be courteous, detached and without personal emotions and he must remember that he has to obey and pa respect to the orders of the higher authorities. It is not for a lower Court to comment or disagree or set aside the judgment of a higher Court. I direct that this matter may not be heard by Mr. S. Abdur Rehman the Rent Controller and the learned District Judge is directed to fix it before some other competent Rent Controller for final disposal.
S.A.H.