' The relevant facts which gave rise to the present writ petition are that on 28-3-1993 Professor Amanat Ullah Sheikh respondent No,2 instituted an 'ejectment petition under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against Mst. Bashir Begum, Shahid Zafar, Zahid Zafar, Amjad Zafar, Wajid Zafar and Rai lkram Haider petitioners for their eviction from the house bearing No,B-11- 1R-39 situated at Tehsil Road Okara on the grounds of default in the payment of rent, unauthorised sub-letting and personal need. The ejectment petition was contested. The petitioners denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was asserted that Sheikh Rehmat Ullah the predecessor in interest of respondent No,2 had agreed to sell the house in dispute to Rai Ikram Haider petitioner No,6 for a price of Rs,1,30,000 and in that regard had executed an agreement of sale on 11-8-1976. It was further asserted that a sum of Rs,30,000 was paid to the said Sheikh Rehmat Ullah as earnest money and that the sale-deed was to be executed and registered after Sh. Rehmat Ullah aforesaid had obtained the P.T.D. With regard to the said houses The contention of the petitioners was that they were in possession of the house in dispute under the said agreement of sale and not as tenants. In view of the plea raised by the petitioners the learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue .To the effect as to whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. On 14-1-1994 respondent No,2 concluded his evidence on the said issue. On 7-3-1995, the date fixed for the evidence of the petitioners, they examined three witnesses requested for an adjournment on the ground of the illness of their 4th witness Haji Muhammad Afzal. It was stated that the said witness was present outside the Court in an injured state because of a road accident and was not in a position to make a statement. The case was adjourned to 15-3-1995. On the said date the petitioner requested for yet another adjournment because of the indisposition of Haji Muhammad Afzal aforesaid. In this connection a chit from the District Headquarter Hospital Okara was produced which showed that the aforesaid witness was getting treatment in the said hospital for 'Acute Severe Asthama' Rest for ten days was advised by the Medical Officer. The learned Rent Controller refused to grant any further adjournment and closed the petitioners' evidence.
2. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have instituted the instant writ petition for a declaration to the effect that the order dated 15-3-1995 whereby the learned Rent Controller had closed their evidence was illegal and without lawful authority.
3. A pre-admission notice was issued to respondent No,2 who entered appearance with his learned counsel.
4. I have heard the parties learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.
5. It is an admitted fact that the order of the learned Rent Controller which has been impugned in the instant writ petition is an interlocutory order. The said order is neither appealable nor revisable under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. A question arose as to whether such an order could be challenged through a Constitutional petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Courts have been entertaining writ petitions against such interlocutory order of Rent Controllers and in this regard referred to Messrs Shahzad Ice Factory and 2 others v. Special Judge Banking (II), Lahore and another PLD 1982 Lahore 92, Pakistan National Shipping Corporation v. Rent Controller, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1992 Lahore 305, Muhammad Farooq and 4 others v.
District Judge, Mardan and 2 others 1992 CLC 379 (Peshawar), Mian Rahim Gul Syed Kaka Khel v.
District Judge (South), Karachi and others 1994 CLC 94 (Karachi) and Attique-ur-Rehman and others v. Muhammad Aslam 1995 CLC 66 (Lahore). In these cases all the judgments have been delivered by the learned Single Judges. On the other hand besides some Single Bench cases a learned Division Bench of this Court has laid down in Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Saratul Fatima and another PLD 1978 Lahore 1459 that no writ lies against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller. It was observed that an interlocutory order under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which had not been held by the Legislature fit to be appealable could not be challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction and that any practice to the contrary would defeat and deflect the legislative intent which was disapproved by the Supreme Court in Mumtaz Hussain alias Bhutta v.
Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore and another (1976 SCMR 450). In the cited case the interlocutory order of the Rent Controller directing the tenant to deposit past and future rent was brought under challenge. It was held that the said order by itself did not cause any tangible damage to the tenant nor was it capable of causing any. It was further laid down that in order to pose a real threat to a tenant it had to be substituted by another order and the moment it so happened a right of appeal would accrue to the said tenant which right was certainly more extensive and beneficial being available in the same hierarchy and on both questions of law as well as of facts. In the present case also the impugned interlocutory order has not caused any tangible damage to the petitioners nor the same is capable of causing any such damage and if later on from the material available on record the learned Rent Controller passes an order of ejectment against the petitioners they would have a right of appeal and in their appeal against the said order they would be at liberty to question the vires of the impugned order also.
6. The precedents referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners reveal that the judgment of the learned Division Bench rendered in Muhammad Saeed's case was not cited before the learned Single Judges. I, therefore, respectfully following the dictum laid down in the aforecited Division Bench case hold that the present writ petition against the interlocutory order of the Rent Controller is not competent and, therefore, the same is dismissed. The parties, however, are left to bear their own costs.