' Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant under the respondent in Shop No,U- 713, Bazar Kalan, Rawalpindi, since 1-5-1986 paying rent at the rate of Rs,3,000 per month. He also paid a sum of Rs, One lac to the respondent on account of security. On 12-10-1996 the respondent filed eviction petition against the petitioner under the provisions of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the ground that the petitioner had not paid any rent from 1-6-1991 and that he requires the shop for the use of his sons. The respondent also claimed increase of rent under section 5-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petition was resisted on the ground that the rent was paid up to February, 1996 and on the refusal of the landlord the petitioner tendered rent to the respondent by Money Order which he did not accept. It was also averred that on the expiry of first five years he paid another sum of Rs,50,000 to the respondent and rent at the rate of Rs,3,800 per mensem was fixed for another five years. On 18-12-1996 the learned Rent Controller ordered the petitioner to pay Rs,1,98,013 on account of arrears of rent and in the same order framed the issues. It was also ordered that onus to prove default shall be on the landlord. The learned Rent Controller also noticed that rent for three years from the alleged date of default and the date when eviction petition was filed had become barred by time.
2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18-12-1996 being in the absence of lawful authority, without jurisdiction, illegal and violative of the provisions of section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 199.
3. Before considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is taken.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the Constitutional Petition is not competent against an interim order passed under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 by the Rent Controller. In order to appreciate the said contention section 13(6) of the said Ordinance is reproduced below:-- "13(6). In proceeding under this section on the first date of hearing or as soon as possible after that date and before issues are framed, the Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit all the rent due from him, and also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case, before the fifteenth day of each month the monthly rent due from him. If there is any dispute about the amount of rent due or the rate of rent, the Controller shall determine such amount approximately and direct that the same be deposited by the tenant before a date to be fixed for the purpose. If the tenant makes default in the compliance of such an order, then if he is the petitioner, his application shall be dismissed summarily and if he is the respondent his defence shall be struck-off and the landlord put into possession of the property without taking any further proceedings in the case.
' The Controller shall finally determine the amount of rent due from the tenant and direct that the same may be paid to the landlord, subject to adjustment of the approximate amount deposited by the tenant."
The bare reading of the above subsection (6) of section 13 ibid makes it clear that order for payment of rent and framing of issues cannot be made on the same date in a single order. This view finds support from a D.B. Ruling in the case of Mst. Razia Begum and another v. 'Senior Civil Judge (Rent Controller), Charsadda and 2 others PLD 1996 Pesh.
8. In the present case, the learned Rent Controller has not only ordered payment of rent but also framed issues and has also disposed of two applications of the tenant/petitioner.
5. The circumstances peculiar in this case need an inquiry as to how much rent is due and for how much the tenant is liable to pay which can be assessed by holding an inquiry as to how much rent has been paid. Similarly, it is also to be seen as to what is the effect of time-lag in the matter of statutory increase being possible 'or not when the amount of Rs,1,00,000 is termed by the tenant as premium in view of section 7 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
6. For all these reasons, writ petition is allowed and the order dated 18-12-1996 of the learned Rent Controller, Rawalpindi, is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and violative of the provisions o section 13(6) of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and is hereby set aside.
7. Learned Rent Controller is directed to hold an inquiry before passing an order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and proceed strictly in accordance with law