' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, assails the validity of an order passed by the Rent Controller, Lahore, on 2-3-1993, directing the petitioner to deposit arrears as well as future rent pending the decision of ejectment petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been asked to explain as to how this petition, which is directed against an interim order passed by the Rent Controller, is competent. He has argued that as the order passed by the Rent Controller is without any jurisdiction, such a petition can be filed.
3. I am afraid, this contention of the learned counsel is not well-founded. It is by now well-settled that an order passed by the Rent Controller directing deposit of rent is purely interim in nature and cannot be subjected to challenge by filing a Constitutional petition before this Court, as it would amount to defeating the legislative intent. It was so ruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Saratul Fatima and another (PLD 1978 Lahore 1459) and also by another Bench in Malik Muhammad Ilyas v. The Rent Controller and another (ICA No,198/89, decided on 5- 12-1989).
4. Even on merits the petitioner has hardly any case. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that as respondent has filed a suit and not an ejectment petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction. I see no substance in this argument. Although in the heading of the petition filed by respondent No,1 before the Rent Controller, it has been described as a case for possession but a reacting of the documents leaves no doubt that it is ejectment petition within the meaning of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, especially when it has been filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge with the powers of Rent Controller, Lahore. A reference may also be made to para. 6 of the petition, in which the respondent had claimed that the present petitioner is liable to be ejected on the grounds therein which are fully covered by section 13 of the Ordinance.
5. It was next urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the tenancy between the parties being for a fixed period of 8 years, the ejectment petition was not competent. No detailed comments on this submission of the learned counsel need be made. Suffices it to say that the filing of the ejectment petition even in cases of fixed tenancy is barred only on the ground of personal use and not where the ejectment is being sought also on other grounds.
6. The learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner was not a defaulter and in any case, as a sum of Rs,2,50,000 was lying with respondent No,1 as security, no order under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance could be passed. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel. The question as to whether or not the petitioner is a defaulter can only be adjudicated upon after the trial of the ejectment petition. Law enjoins upon a tenant, as a condition precedent to the examination of his case, to deposit the rent. As regards security, it is well-settled that the amount lying with the landlord as security cannot be adjusted towards the payment of monthly rent. Even otherwise this question can only be considered at the trial of the ejectment petition before the Rent Controller.
' For the reasons above, this petition is dismissed with costs.