RDER S.M. ZUBAIR, J. - The petitioner is tenant ol' respondents \ and 2. The landlords Hied petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance for the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises on26.5.1992 which is still pending.
2. After the close of evidence, the petitioner moved an application for additional evidence and this application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 26.3.19% by observing: - "Now when the evidence of the parties has already concluded, this Court cannot summon the report as per request of the petitioner as it would cause inordinate delay in the disposal of the ejectment petition which has been pending since 1992."Again, on 11.4.19%, the petitioner-tenant liled another application under Order 16(3) Rule 7-A(l) CPC with the prayer that he maV be allowed to summon the clerk of the Post Office to bear out the money order coupon from his record. This application too was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 30.5.19%. These two interlocutory orders dated 26.3.19% and 30.5.PW6 have been challenged through this Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had placed on record the receipts of the money orders whereby the landlords refused to receive the rent, therefore, the learned Rent Controller was under a legal obligation to give chance to the petitioner by issuing summon to the clerk of the Post Office to appear in Court to prove the money order receipts and the refusal on the part of the Rent Controller to summon the clerk has resulted intomiscarriage of justice. The impugned interlocutory orders are without lawful Authority and can be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction, In support'of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on 1972 S.C.M.R. 534, P.L.D. 1976 Lahore 1044. P.L.D. 197.X Lahore 1459, N.L.R. 19,8,X(Civil) 594 and P.L.D. 1993 Lahore 492.
4. I have heard leaned counsel for the petitioner at length.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muhammad Saved versus Mst Saraiul Fatima and another (P.L.D. 197,S Lahore 1459) held:- The Legislature manifested its intent unequivocablv by prescribing two broad categories of all orders passed under the W.P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) by making the.
Moredeterminative orders constituting the smaller category appealable and all others forming the larger category non-appcalable.................................................................... ,...:................. .Any contention, orpractice to the contrary, would defeat and deflect the legislative intent,-which has been disapproved''in Mumtaz Hussain Bhuda v. Chief 'Administrator Auqaf etc-. (1976 S.C.M.R. 450)."
6. The legislature in its wisdom did not allow appeal from the interloculorv orders under section 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and theimpugned. Orders are not fil enough to attract invocation of constitutional jurisdiction ol this Court. Even, during thccilnirsc of arguments, learned counsel#tbstiled a review petition has also tiled#toconceded the fatf lhat the petitioner has.Alsoa review petition with respect to the impugned orders before the Rent Controller.#tbsionarv in nature 'cannot be exercised of the petitioner is to delay the e pending since 1992 which defeats petitioner is also not entitled to the#toThe constitutional jurisdiction which is discrct in the aid of injustice. The main object proceedings which are quasi judicial in natun the object of the law. Due to his conduct, thediscretionary relief apart from legal hurdle which is in his way, in view of cnunciation of law made in muhammad saeed's case (P.L.D. 1978 Lahorc 1459).
For all these reasons this petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine.