' This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.26070, 26071, and 26072 of 1997 as they involve common questions of law and fact.
2. Respondent No,2 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioners which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore. The respondent ' No,2. Filed separate appeals without affixing the court-fee to which an objection application was made by the present petitioners. The application of the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that in the circumstances of the case no court-fee was required to be paid particularly when the petitioners had themselves taken the ground as to the quantum of the rent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that respondent No,2 was required to pay ad valorem court-fee. He relied on the case of Sajad Ahmad v. Muhammad Yunus (1993 CLC 224) wherein it was held that such a court-fee was payable on appeals.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondent has stated that it was in view of the position taken by the writ petitioners themselves that the answering respondent did not pay the court-fee.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The impugned orders are interlocutory in nature and do not dispose of the whole case. In such-like matters arising under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, it is well settled that normally this Court should not interfere with the piece-meal decision of the subordinate functionaries. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain (PLD 1975 SC 457). This issue shall, however, remain open to be reagitated by the writ petitioners if the final decision is adverse to their interest.