' This petition is directed against the order dated 28-9-1996 passed by the Controller of Rent, Clifton Cantonment, directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears and future rent of the premises in question.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that he took the house in question on rent from respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under written tenancy agreement. The monthly rent under the last agreement was fixed at Rs,4,500 and in addition a sum of Rs,3,000 was fixed as hiring charges for fittings and fixtures. It is alleged that on the expiry of the last agreement, no further agreement was entered into as the said respondnets were demanding Rs,500 increase in the monthly rent which the petitioner was not prepared to pay. The rent was being deposited in the bank account of Mst. Shamsunnisa Begum, respondent No,3 and this continued until October, 1994. It is alleged that respondents' advocate by notice dated 10-11-1994 asked the petitioner to vacate the premises, but it was not stated in the notice to whom the possession be handed over nor was anything mentioned about the return of the security deposit of Rs,14,000. It is further submitted that the amount of Rs,3,000 being charged by the said respondents by way of hiring charges for fixtures and fittings was contrary to the provision of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, and therefore, the petitioner also demanded the return of these payments, but heard nothing about this from the respondents either.
3. It is contended that the petitioner vacated the house in question on 28-12-1994. He, however, admits that after vacating the said house possession was not handed over to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the reasons, according to him, being firstly, that the said respondents did not nominate any one to take possession and secondly, that the respondents did not return the security deposit, the hire charges and certain other expenses incurred by the petitioner, in all totalling to Rs,1,63,133. He states that for the recovery of the said amount a suit has also been filed by the petitioner which is still pending. Accordingly, he submits that after the petitioner had vacated the premises on 28-12- 1994, he was no longer a tenant of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. His next contention is that the house in question was rented out to the petitioner by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 jointly, while the rent case was filed only by respondent No,2, who is just a co-owner, and therefore, the said respondent alone cannot be considered a landlord of the premises.
4. On the above submissions it is argued that it was incumbent upon the Rent Controller to have determined the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but without doing so he passed the impugned order, directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs,1,03,500 from November, 1994 up to September, 1996 at the rate of Rs,4,500 and future rent at the same rate. It may be mentioned that the learned Rent Controller has taken care not to require the petitioner to pay the disputed monthly hiring charges of Rs,3,000.
5. On my query as to how the present Constitutional petition is maintainable against an interim order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner submits that determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties being a jurisdictional question the Rent Controller ought to have decided this issue before passing the rent order. In support he places reliance on the case of A.M.
Qureshi v. Government of Sindh and others 1991 SCM R 1103. That appeal arose out of a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Government of Sindh through Secretary, Education Department, Karachi v. District Judge, Karachi and 2 others 1986 CLC 912. In that case the title of the appellant was seriously disputed by the Government on the ground that the land on which the building was constructed had been acquired for educational purposes and the building was constructed by the Government fund, made available to the appellant by way of grant in aid and also on the ground that under M.L.R. 118 the eviction application was not maintainable. The Rent Controller, however, granted appellant's application for eviction of the Government from the premises which order was confirmed by the District Judge, Karachi, as the First Appellate Court. The appellate order was challenged before this Court in Constitutional petition, which was allowed and it was held that in a case where relationship of landlord and tenant is in dispute the Rent Controller should first decide this issue before passing a rent order and as the Rent Controller had failed to so, it was held that he "acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction".
The Supreme Court while dismissing appeal upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge.
6. However, as is obvious the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked after the final order had been passed by the Rent Controller and after exhausting the remedy of appeal provided under the statute. In the present case the petitioner has rushed to this Court to challenge an interim rent order of the Rent Controller when section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, specifically bars appeal from interim orders. This restriction is apparently with a view to avoid piecemeal decision in cases and to ensure expeditious disposal under the Act. Constitutional jurisdiction if allowed to be invoked in cases where appeal is specifically barred would, negate the very purpose of the statute and render the provision meaningless. In a number of cases the superior Courts have disapproved piecemeal decision in a matter and invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction to challenge interim orders in .Rent cases. Reference may be made to the cases Abdul Rehman v. Haji Mir Muhammad and another PLD 1983 SC 21; Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1975 SC 457; Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Sartul Fatima and another PLD 1978 Lah. 459 and Habib Alvi Athar v. Hassan and 7 others 1986 M LD 1656.
7. Accordingly in my view the present petition which has been filed to challenge an interim order of the Rent Controller is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine.
' In view of the above order Miscellaneous No,276 of 1996 has become infrutuous and is dismissed.