' The brief facts leading to the present writ petition are that respondent No,3 herein, Mst. Saeeda Begum, had filed a suit for ejectment under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on 24-2-1981 before the Rent Controller, Multan, in respect of the property i,e. House No, 3704/48 Arslan Street, Ward No,8 Muslim, Hassan Parwana Colony, Multan, in possession of the present petitioners. The petitioners were running a school in the said premises. In the amended written statement filed on behalf of the petitioners/defendants, the preliminary objection was to the effect that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit for ejectment against the petitioners as the property in question had been requisitioned by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, vide his order dated 29-9-1975, under the provision of West Pakistan Requisition of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956.
2. However, in the meanwhile, respondent No,3 moved an application under section 13 (6) of the said Ordinance, with the prayer that as the petitioners/tenants have not complied with the order of 12-7-1981, thus committing default in depositing the monthly rent, therefore, their defence be struck off. The said application was resisted by the present petitioners/defendants, but the learned Rent Controller accepted the said application and struck off the defence and passed an ejectment order directing the vacation of the said premises within a period of four months.
3. The Headmaster of the said school, defendant No,1 preferred an appeal against the said order but the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Multan, vide his order dated 13-6- 1983, on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi to prefer the appeal, further directing that the house in question be vacated and its physical possession be handed over to the said Mst.
Saeeda Begum within a period of four months.
4. The petitioners have assailed the orders of respondents Nos.1 and 2, dated 13-6-1983 and 18-11- 1982 respectively, for being illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case of the petitioners is that as the property in question had been requisitioned by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, therefore, in view of Section 11 of the West Pakistan Requisition of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, no ejectment petition could be entertained in respect of the same by the learned Rent Controller; and that the learned Rent Controller did not .Advert to this aspect of the case and exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in him; and that petitioner No,3 herein was competent to file the appeal as the sanction in respect of pursuing the case had been granted by the Government and, that, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had erred in law in holding that the appeal was not competent.
5. It is an admitted fact that the property in question had been duly requisitioned in accordance with the provisions of the West Pakistan Requisition of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers)
Act, 1956, and that respondent No,3 herein had accepted the rent in pursuance thereto, having acquiesced in the requisitioning of her house, as stated above, and, furthermore that the respondent No,3, Mst. Saeeda Begum had never challenged the said requisitioning of her house.
Therefore, it needs to be adjudicated upon whether or not the learned Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain her application for ejectment of the petitioners from the said premises. In this respect, the relevant provisions are contained in section 11 of the Act, 1956 stated above, which is as follows: "11. Exemption from legal processes.--(1) No injunction or an order for ejectment, delivery of possession or appointment of a receiver in respect of any building which has been requisitioned under this Act shall be granted or made by any Court or by any other authority."
6. A bare reading of section 11 of the Act, 1956, reproduced above, makes it abundantly clear that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit for ejectment in respect of the requisitioned property i,e. The house in question, i,e. House. No, 3704/48, Arslan Street, Ward No,8 Muslim, Hassan Parwana Colony, Multan, being occupied A by the Government Madrasa Taleem-ul-Atfal. Therefore, .The order dated 18-11-1982, passed by the learned Rent Controller, striking off the defence of the petitioners and further ordering the ejectment of the petitioners from the said premises and handing over of the same to the respondent No,3 within four months was without jurisdiction and lawful authority and, as such, of no legal effect. In this respect, strength was sought from Punjab Province etc. v. Hafiz Sultan Mahmood (1982 CLC 169), wherein it was held that property once requisitioned, Rent Controller ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with hearing of ejectment petition, and the ejectment order passed by him was declared to be without lawful authority. Reference was also made to Mohammad 'Tufail v.
Province of Punjab and five others (PLD 1978 Lahore 87) and to the Province of Punjab v. Mst. Umar Bibi and another (1984 MLD 491) in this respect. The learned A.-A.G. Had also relied upon Writ Petition No, 1012/1982, decided vide order dated 8-3-1983, wherein the same point was adjudicated upon and it was held that as the property in question stood requisitioned, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the orders passed by the Rent Controller and subsequently by the appellate authority, therefore, cannot be sustained, resultantly the said orders were declared to be of no legal effect.
7. As regards the objection upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that the appellant, petitioner No,3 herein, was not competent to file the said appeal, it needs to be pointed out that in accordance with the provision of Order XLI, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. The petitioner No,3 being a defendant (No,1) in the ejectment pjoceedings, and thus being aggrieved by the order dated 18- 11-1982, passed by the learned Rent Controller, was competent to file an appeal against the same under section 15 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Therefore, the order dated 13-6- 1983, passed by the learned, ' Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he rejected the appeal on the said ground is not sustainable at law.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, the present writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders, dated 18-11-1982 and 13-6-1983, passed by the learned Rent Controller and the first appellate authority respectively, are hereby declared to be without jurisdiction, therefore, of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.