' Faiz Muhammad alias Faiza respondent No,3 has filed an application under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against Allah Ditta petitioner which is pending in the Court of the Rent Controller, Jampur The ejectment is sought on the grounds that. Allah Ditta was a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent, that he had impaired the value of the house and that the house was required by Faiz Muhammad in good faith for his own use. The said application was resisted by Allah Ditta who in the written reply took up the plea that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and that he was the owner of the house about which he had instituted a suit for declaration before the Civil Court at Jampur. After hearing the parties the Rent Controller passed the order on 23-1-1994 directing Allah Ditta as a tenant under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance to deposit the tentative rent. Against this order an appeal was preferred which was dismissed on 12-4-1994 by the Additional District Judge by holding that the appeal against the interlocutory order of the Rent Controller was not maintainable.
2. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner Allah Ditta has filed this writ petition getting set aside the aforesaid ordeRs, With respect to the order passed by the Rent Controller the contention of the petitioner is that without holding the enquiry the order could not be passed. About the order dated 12-4-1994 passed by the lower appellate Court the assertion of the petitioner is that the appeal should have been returned which could not be dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record forming part of this file. At the very outset learned counsel for the respondent raised the objection that against the interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller the writ petition is not maintainable in the same manner that the appeal is not maintainable against such an order. According to him in case the defence of the tenant is struck off he has the immediate remedy by availing appeal which would be considered to be an efficacious remedy and that the pendency of the writ petition would tend to delay administration of justice. In this regard he relied on Rasheed Ahmad v. Sufi Muhammad and another PLD 1977 Lahore 793. He' also relied on Muhammad Saeed v. Sitaratul Fatima etc. PLD 1978 Lah. 1459 wherein it has been held that against an order of a Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 about the deposit of the tentative rent the remedy of writ jurisdiction is not available. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to meet the aforesaid objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. My view is that if against an interlocutory order of the Rent Controller the appeal is not maintainable the writ petition is also not maintainable. The idea behind is to curb every effort towards the delay regarding the administration of justice. I, therefore, hold that this writ petition is not maintainable.
4. For what has been said above I dismiss this writ petition.