1. This appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17-4-1994, C.M.A. No. 440/94 was moved by the appellant for restoration. Said application was decided on 16-5-1994 when I ordered restoration of the appeal on payment of costs of Rs. 1,000 by the appellant to the respondent. The appellant is aggrieved by the order about costs and he had moved present application for review of that part of the order by which costs were imposed.
2. Mr. M. Iqbal Malik, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the provisions contained in Civil Procedure Code were not applicable to the proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereafter mentioned as Ordinance, 1979) except the powers mentioned in section 20 of the Ordinance, 1979. It was further argued that for restoration of rent application or of a rent appeal the costs cannot be ordered. In support, learned counsel for the appellant cited the case of Ismail v. Rent Controller, Shahdadpur and another 1983 CLC 2994.
3. Mr. Saleem Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent took a legal objection that this review application was not maintainable, when provisions contained in Civil Procedure Code were not applicable to proceedings under the Rent Ordinance, 1979. In support he cited the cases of Ainul Haq v. Shahid Ahmad Perwaiz 1984 CLC 47 and Mst. Fahmida Begum v. Muhammad Khalid and another 1992 SCM R 1908.
4. 1983 CLC 2994, the costs were ordered by the Rent Controller while granting an adjournment and a learned D.B. Of this Court held that a Rent Controller is not empowered to award costs on adjournment, while proceeding under the Ordinance, 1979. In the present case, costs were not ordered on grant of adjournment and hence cited case has no application. In the case of Mst.
5. Fehmida Begum 1992 SCM R 1908, it was held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that a Rent Controller as a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction is competent to re-call or review his order obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. There is no such allegation and cited case will not apply. In the case of Ainul Haque 1984 CLC 47, the view taken was that the Controller and the Appellate Authority under the Ordinance, 1979, have powers of a Civil Court only in respect of the matters mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c) & (d) below section 20 of the Ordinance, 1979, with no other power. It was, however, observed that a Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority in the matter of procedure can follow the equitable principles contained in the Civil Procedure Code except the provisions relating to appeal or review. It was also observed that in the absence of any provision for review in the Ordinance, 1979, the power of review cannot be exercised in the proceedings under the Ordinance, 1979.