This order shall dispose of Civil Revisions Nos.2240 of 1985, C.R 2241/86, C.R. 2242/85, C.R. 2243/85, C.R. 2244/85, C.R. 307/85, C.R. 308/85, C.R. 309/86, C.R. 310/86, C.R. 311/86, C.R. 312/86, C.R. 313/86, C.R. 314/86, C.R. 315/86, C.R. 316/86, C.R. 317/86, C.R. 318/86, C.R. 319/86, C.R. 320/86, C.R. 321/86, C.R.
322/86, C.R. 323/86, C.R. 324/86, C.R. 325/86, C.R. 326/86, C.R. 327/86, C.R. 328/86, C.R. 329/86, C.R.
330/86, C.R. 331/86, C.R. 332/86, and C.R. 333/86 as the facts are common and similar question of law arise in all of these revisions.
2. The respondents in all revision petitions, filed suits for declaration with consequential relief, praying therein, that the orders, dated 18-9-1980, 28-5-1981 and 28-7-1981, passed by respondents Nos.2 to 4 to be declared as illegal, mala fide and they be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the shops in their occupation or from interfering in their peaceful possession as a tenant. It was stated that the shops existed at Trunk Bazar, Landa Bazar, Lahore which belonged to the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, The property was taken over by the Central Government in the year 1961 through Ordinance III of 1961, namely, Jammu and Kashmir (Administration of Property) Ordinance III of 1961 and resultantly, the property vested in the Central Government. The petitioners, who were old tenants, who were required to renew the contract of tenancy with the Central Government which was accepted and changed terms of tenancy in the light of terms settled with the Administrator, were enforced. The Ordinance also authorised Central Government to arrange for sale and leasing out of property through Administrator. Various agreements of sale were executed between the parties. There were some disputes between the respondents and those occupants, who had entered into agreement of sale on the question of rate of sale price for which negotiations were made. The respondents failed to persuade the occupants for payment of increased price, who insisted old terms of sale, therefore, according to the petitioners, Ordinance XII of 1979 was brought to use coercive measures by making unlawful and exorbitant increase in the rental of the property. According to the petitioners the respondent No.4 sent them notices requiring them to attend his office to settle increase in the rate of rent. Without recording any evidence, fair opportunity of hearing and a total disregard of law, it is stated, that respondent No.4 passed order, dated 8-9-1980, whereby unilateral exhoribitant, unfairable, unheard of and unfair increase in rent was thrusted against the tenants. The petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.3 who also dismissed the same without passing any order with independent application of mind. Revisions were filed before respondent No.2 but the same ended in dismissal as, according to the petitioners, they were none to hear or listen to the petitioners. In this back drop, the petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief, where they challenged the said orders, on the ground, that respondent No.4 could not be judge of his own cause, the orders were violative of Principle of natural Justice, the respondent No.4 could not act without prior permission of Central Government, he could not enhance the rent without the permission of the Central Government, the notices sent by him were illegal, the rate of rent fixed by him were patently against law, and contrary to the rule of reasonableness, the orders were violative of rule of equality as the petitioners were treated different from the provisions of Rent Laws, the petitioners were old tenants, and being party to the contract of tenancy, they could not be compelled to accept one-sided unilateral decision. Number of other grounds were also taken and it was asserted, that the authorities concerned failed to perform their duties in accordance with law and that the appellate authority or revisional authority did not take a decision with independent application of mind or by fulfilling the fundamental rules governing disposal of appeal and revisions before a quasi judicial forum.
3. The respondents, raised objection, to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits filed by petitioners. Vide judgment and decree, dated 15-12-1984, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit with cost, by observing that the order passed by the authority could only be challenged before the forum provided by the Ordinance and jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under section 5- B(2) of the Ordinance.
4. The petitioners challenged the judgments and decrees of the learned trial Court in appeal which too were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order, dated 13-8-1985. The learned Additional District Judge also took the view that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in respect of the properties of Jammu and Kashmir and in view of the alleged bar, it was held that the suit could not be entertained. The judgments of the learned two Courts below have been challenged in the present revision petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the orders passed by the learned Courts below are against law, the suits could not be dismissed without recording evidence nor the plaints could be rejected in the given circumstances. The orders had been challenged on the grounds of being violative of Principle of Natural Justice, without jurisdiction, contrary to the rule of reasonableness and equality and serious allegations as to the failure of the authorities to perform their duties having been raised, the Civil Courts being the Courts of ultimate jurisdiction were bound to entertain the suits, hence the impugned judgments are not sustainable. He placed reliance on the following judgments, PLD 1965"SC 671, PLD 1965 SC 698, 1991 M LD 345, 1994 M LD 874, PLD 1970 SC 180, 1994 CLC 342, 1994 CLC 984 and 1996 CLC 1382.
6. He further argued that even if the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred by any Statute, yet the Civil Courts can entertain a civil suit to determine if the prescribed Tribunals or Authorities had acted beyond their authorities or in violation of the law under which they were constituted. He maintained, that the existing rent of Rs.20, 30 and 50 were increased to an unfairable limit by compelling the tenants to pay at the rate of Rs.1,25 per sq.Ft. Which order being one-sided, violative of the rule of natural justice, based on' no evidence and otherwise against the provisions of Constitution could not be sustained. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, tried to support the judgments of the learned Courts below by arguing, that the petitioners were unnecessarily dragging the respondents in litigation to avoid their liabilities. He further submitted, that the Administrator had the exclusive authority to make determination which could not be questioned in the Civil Court and the jurisdiction was barred by the provisions of section 5-2 (b) of the Ordinance.
7. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and record perused.
8. Admittedly, a suit cannot be dismissed, unless issues are framed, evidence is recorded and parties are afforded with an opportunity of hearing. Dismissal of suit is altogether different from rejection of plaint. In this case, the parties were at issue and it could not be said that there was no dispute and thus a judgment could not be pronounced. In the presence of serious issues arising from the pleadings, the Court could not adopt a short-way of dismissing the suit; for any reason whatsoever, by ignoring the normal procedure of framing issues and recording evidence. At best, if the suit was found to be barred by any of law, a request for rejection of plaint or return thereof could be made. Under Orders 14 and 18 of C.P.C., where the pleadings, give rise to controversial issues the same have to be resolved after recording of evidence. The learned trial Court, therefore, committed a material irregularity in dismissing the suit.
9.As far as rejection of plaint, the same was also not possible in the present case. For rejection of plaint, only contents of the plaint can be looked into while the averments therein are deemed to be true for limited purposes. If the contents of the plaint, in the, suit of petitioners are minutely examined, it will be noted that they had challenged the orders of Administrator and the Authorities in appeal and revision, on the ground that the same were violative of rule of natural justice, were based on no evidence, and were unfair, unreasonable, without jurisdiction and otherwise violative of the provisions of Rent Laws. The orders were further challenged on the ground that no party, contract could be given any upper hand to enforce one-sided arbitrary decision against the other for changing the contract in a way that it becomes impossible for other side to continue his occupation as a tenant. It was also pleaded that the petitioners were neither properly heard nor allowed to produce any evidence to show that the rent was fair and that the alleged increase intended to be enforced by respondent No.4 could not be justified in the light of the prevailing market rental value of the property in the respective area. These points could be resolved by recording evidence, after framing of issues. The plea raised, to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was also based on erroneous assumption and misunderstanding of law. Reading of Clause 5-B of the Ordinance, show, that the suit and legal proceedings were prohibited only if the authority had acted in good faith or proceeded in accordance with the Ordinance. In this case, there were serious allegations, that the orders were mala fide and that the action was initiated to coerce the tenants for accepting illegal dictating terms. In this view of the matter, the present suits were not at all barred by Clause 5-B of the Ordinance. Be that as it may, the orders and acts having been challenged on the ground of lack of authority and jurisdiction, violative of rule. Of natural justice and violation of fundamental rights, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts could not be taken away and being Court of ultimate jurisdiction, the Civil Courts were competent to examine if the respective authorities had acted within the purview of the law creating them or it had not otherwise acted in violation of the settled rules. Reference can be made to Hamid Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan and others (1974 SCM R 356), where it was held as follows:- "It was held in that case that a Civil Court of plenary jurisdiction under section 9 of the C.P.C. Can make an inquiry as to the existence or otherwise of facts which gave exclusive jurisdiction to a tribunal of special jurisdiction. Such tribunal of special jurisdiction has no jurisdiction to determine any facts on the basis of which it will have the power to assume jurisdiction and make order falling within its jurisdiction. It was further observed in that case that even if a Court or Tribunal of special jurisdiction is empowered to determine facts on the proof of which it has passed an order, even that will be open to scrutiny of Courts of general jurisdiction."
10. For the reasons above, the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge cannot be approved or sustained in law. Resultantly, the rev is ions 'petitions are accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees/orders are set aside, the cases are remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh decision on merits, after framing issues, recording evidence and hearing the parties. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Court- on 10th of July, 1997, which shall decide the suit, within two months by recording day to day proceedings, with intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The parties shall bear their own cost.