Challenge in this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is sought to be made to order dated 28-5-1994 whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Rawalpindi fixed the tentative monthly rental of the disputed property situated in a commercial area at Rs.2,000.
2. On 22-8-1994 both the learned counsel for the parties were asked to further prepare their respective briefs from the point of view of maintainability or otherwise of this petition in the presence of the resolution of the disputed question against the petitioner, as reflected in Rashid Ahmed v. So of Muhammad Saleem and another (PLD 1976 Lahore 1450).
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at this stage.
3-A. Syed Riazat Hussain Chishti, learned counsel for the petitioner, bas referred to Mistri Allah Din v.
Mst. Kaneez Begum (PLD 1961 (W.P.) Lahore 410), Rabbani and another v. Syed Abdul Wali etc. 1982 CLC 2005, Haji Saat Muhammad v. Muhammad Saleem Qureshi., etc. PLD 1988 Quetta 57 and A.I Jan v. Shujauddin (PLD 1985 Karachi 698) to contend that the fixation of tentative rent in the instant case is justiciable in any proceedings taken thereagainst at the instance of the aggrieved party.
The learned counsel for the respondent appearing at pre-admission stage, has controverted the plea being raised on behalf of the petitioner and referred to Mst. Bushra Begum v. Rent Controller (1992 ALD 71 (1) in which this Court had relied upon the case of Rashid Ahmed (supra) for holding that a direction issued by a Rent Controller for the deposit of tentative rental amount could not be characterised either without jurisdiction or without lawful authority and that an aggrieved person having an alternate remedy to challenge the correctness of any such order in appeal from the final order of ejectment, if rendered, this Court "was not called upon to express its opinion on its merits, lest it should foreclose its scrutiny in 'appeal" while declining to interfere in the order fixing the tentative rent of the disputed premises there.
4. I have considered the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and have also perused the precedents cited on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel. I find that the observations made in all the precedents, namely, Mistri Allah Din, Rabbani and another and Haji Saat Muhammad, were made while considering the appeals against the final orders passed by the Rent Controllers under the provisions of the Rent Restriction Ordinance/s.
5. The case of Rashid Ahmed in relation to the tentative nature of the order under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (No. VI) of 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, as also on the question of the availability of an alternate remedy to an aggrieved person in relation to the final order being rendered against him in future with the result that the High Court will not consider the case in its Constitutional jurisdiction at that stage, has not been shown to be un-attracted to the instant case. Alongwith rendering the impugned order dated 28- 5-1994, the learned Rent Controller proceeded with the framing of issues in the cause after determining the tentative rental value of the disputed premises by specifically referring to the locale of the same within a commercial area. The position that emerges is that the cause has not yet been finally resolved and the impugned direction under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance, remains tentative and that it would only be the future course of events which will determine the question of forum available to the petitioner under section 15 of the Ordinance, which situation has not yet arisen. I am not inclined to entertain this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.