Learned counsel for the petitioner has been asked to show as to how this petition which is directed against an order passed by the Rent Controller for deposit of rent pending decision of ejectment petition under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was competent in view of two judgments of Division Benches of this Court in Muhammad Saeed v. Mst, Sartul Fatima and another PLD 1978 Lah. 1459 and Malik Muhammad Ilyas v The Rent Controller and others I.CA. 192 of 1989, decided on 5th December, 1989. He has argued that as the order in question is not interlocutory but is final, the Constitutional petition is competent. This contention of the learned counsel has hardly any force. If the order had been final, the remedy available to the petitioner would have been to file appeal and not this petition. It is, therefore, difficult to agree with the learned counsel that order is not interlocutory or interim in nature.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had been directed by the Rent Controller to deposit the rent with effect from October, 1990 before 30 days of next month and that period has already run on and that the petitioner may be granted some time to deposit the rent now.
3. There appears to be no necessity of giving such an indulgence. The impugned order of the Rent Controller, directing the petitioner to deposit the rent was suspended by this Court on Ist November, 1992 by which time 14 days were still available to the petitioner to deposit the rent. On the principle laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Messrs Ansari Brothers v. Holy Trinity Church Trust PLD 1971 SC 700 the petitioner can deposit the rent due within a period of 14 days from today.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that in any case, the Rent Controller could not have allowed respondent No.1 to withdraw the rent which had been deposited by the petitioner pending decision of the jurisdictional objection. Learned counsel for the respondent No.I undertakes that respondent shall not withdraw the rent till such time the Rent Controller decides the objection to his jurisdiction.
For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed. No order as to costs.