' This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge & Rent Controller, Karachi (West), whereby he ordered to strike off the defence of the opponent and directed them to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the applicant, present respondent had filed the said rent case against the present appellant and one Shakarrez for ejectment from shop No,10, Ibrahim Ali Bhai Building, Site, Metroville Scheme No,1, Karachi, who was his tenant on the monthly rent of Rs,400 vide tenancy agreement dated 12-9-1982. The grounds urged in the ejectment case were default and subletting.
The said Shakarrez (Opponent No,1) did not contest and the matter proceeded ex parte against him while the present appellant (Opponent No,2) filed his written statement, wherein he alleged that the parties were closely related to each other and, therefore, there was no agreement between the parties and no receipt for rent was being passed over to him. He claimed to be the tenant and denied the allegation of default. The present respondent thereafter filed an application under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, to which the present appellant had filed his objections and took the plea that he had paid the rent to the owner and his Rent Collector amounting to a total consideration of Rs,12,000 and also that Rs,1,000 was paid to the landlord as advance rent and goodwill. The Rent Controller, however, passed an order for deposit of rent amounting to Rs,14,800 for the period March, 1983 to April, 1986 at Rs,400 per month. This rate was, however, not denied by the present appellant. The appellant failed to deposit the said amount and the report of the Nazir showed that not a single penny was deposited by him. Conseqently, an application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed by the present respondent, to which also the present appellant filed his objections, wherein he took a further plea that one Mr. Lakhani, showing himself to be the owner of the property, had entered into an agreement of sale with the present appellant for a total consideration of Rs,75,000 out of which he had received a sum of Rs,60,000 and that an amount of Rs,12,800 being ever payment of rent was to be adjusted and, therefore, the remaiing amount of Rs,2,200 was to be paid for execution of legal document of ownership. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing the arguments, was pleased to pass the impugned order, which has been challenged in this appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. Syed Ali Rahbar Rizvi, Advocate for the appellant. He has submitted that order of the Rent Controller is contrary to the law and is an order without jurisdiction as the disputed property is situated in the area of Orangi Town Police Station and not within the jurisdiction of Manghopir Police Station. He has submitted that Mertoville Scheme No,1 comes within the jurisdiction of Orangi Town Police Station. He has placed reliance on a photostat copy of the jurisdiction List of District West and has submitted that Orangi Town Police Station falls within the jurisdiction of 1st Civil Judge and Rent Controller while Manghopir Police Station falls within the jurisdiction of 111rd Senior Civil Judge & Rent Controller. This photo copy, showing the jurisdiction list of District West, does not show as to which authority issued this allocation. The learned A counsel for the parties during the arguments had submitted that this list was issued obviously by the District Judge and not by the Provincial Government.
4. Repelling the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the provisions of section 4(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which provides that Government may appoint one or more Controllers in any District and the Government shall define the local limit within which each of such Controllers shall exercise jurisdiction. From this, the learned counsel has submitted that there is nothing on record to show whether the District Judge was authorised to allocate various territorial jurisdiction to the Rent Controllers appointed in District Karachi (West). He has placed reliance on a case of Zohra Begum v. Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. 1984 CLC 2769, wherein it was held:- "....The learned counsel for the appellant was not able to show that the said territorial jurisdiction was assigned to the said Controller by order of the Government: on the contrary it was conceded by him that the work relating to the area which covers the disputed premises was given to Rent Controller I by local distribution made by the District Judge, Karachi is still a single judicial district presided by one District Judge. Therefore, in absence of Government order fixing the territorial jurisdiction of the Rent Controllers in the Karachi District, the territorial jurisdiction vested in such Controllers shall be conterminous with the territorial limits of Karachi District. Accordingly, it cannot be argued that the respondents deposited the rent in the Court having no jurisdiction..."
' He has further placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Ishaq v. Saiduddin Swaleh PLD 1959 Karachi (W.P.) 669, in which it was observed:- "it should be remembered that even in cases of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the judgment of a Civil Court (except in cases arising under private international law) is not void. It is not liable to be challenged in collateral proceedings and in fact even before an Appellate Court, the plea is not open unless prejudice is caused..."
' He has further placed reliance on a case of Shahbaz Ahmed v. Muhammad Shafi and others 1985 SCMR 604, wherein it was held:- "A plain reading of this provision would show that in the absence of any direction to the contrary by the High Court, a Civil Judge posted in the district of Sialkot can competently exercise jurisdiction for purposes of section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code within the entire limits of Sialkot district including naturally cases pertaining to immovable property located in Daska tehsil of Sialkot."
' Lastly Mr, Abdul Naseer Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that an execution application had been filed by the present respondent after the impugned order was passed and the possession of the disputed premises has since been handed over to the respondent through an order passed in execution application and no fruitful purpose is going to be served in the present appeal.
5. From the above discussion, I am of the view that in the first instance since possession has already been handed over to the present respondent since about 3 years back and relying on the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.