1. ' The petitioner is tenant of respondents 1 and 2. The landlords filed petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance for the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises on 26-5-1992 which is still pending.
2. After the close of evidence, the petitioner moved an application for additional evidence and this application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 26-3-1996 by observing:-- "Now when the evidence of the parties has already concluded, this Court cannot summon the report as per request of the petitioner as it would cause inordinate delay in the disposal= of the ejectment petition which has been pending since 1992."
2. ' Again, on 11-4-1996, the petitioner-tenant filed another application under Order 16(3), Rule 7-A(1), C.P.C. With the prayer that he may be allowed to summon the clerk of the Post Office to bear out the money order coupon from his record. This application too was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 30-5-1996. These two interlocutory orders dated 26-3-1996 and 30-5-1996 have been challenged through this Constitutional petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had placed on record the receipts of the money orders whereby the landlords refused to receive the rent, therefore, the learned Rent Controller was under a legal obligation to give chance to the petitioner by issuing summon to the clerk of the Post Office to appear in Court to prove the money order receipts and the refusal on the part of the Rent Controller to summon the clerk has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The impugned interlocutory orders are without lawful authority and can be challenged in the Constitutional jurisdiction. In support. Of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on'1972 SCMR 534; PLD 1976 Lah.
3. 1044; PLD 1978 Lah. 1459; NLR 1988 (Civil) 594 and PLD 1993 Lah.
4. 492.
5. ' I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Saratul Fatima and another PLD 1978 Lahore 1459 held:-- "The Legislature manifested its intent unequivocably by prescribing two broad categories of all orders passed under the W.P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) by making the more determinative orders constituting the smaller category appealable and all others forming the larger category non-appealable.,.
6. ' Any contention, or practice to the contrary, would defeat and deflect the legislative intent, which has been disapproved in Mumtaz Hussain Bhutta v. Chief Administrator Auqaf etc. 1976 SCMR 450."
7. 6, The Legislature in its wisdom did not allow appeal from the interlocutory orders under section 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and the impugned orders are not fit enough to attract invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Even, during the course of arguments, learned counsel conceded the tact that the petitioner has also filed a review petition with respect to the impugned orders before the Rent Controller. The Constitutional jurisdiction which is discretionary in nature cannot be exercised in the aid of injustice. The main object of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings which are quasi-judicial in nature pending since 1992, which defeats the object of the law. Due to his conduct, the petitioner is also not entitled to the discretionary relief apart from legal hurdle which is in his way, in view of enunciation of law made in Muhammad Saeed's case PLD 1978 Lah.
8. 1459.
9. ' For all these reasons, this petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine.