' A tenant has by this writ petition called in question an order by a learned Rent Controller under first part of subsection (6) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
The petitioner after submission of his written statement was directed to deposit arrears as also current monthly rent. He had in the written statement denied default in payment of rent and had asserted that he had paid the rent regularly. He however, did not rely in his written statement on any receipt in this behalf The learned Rent Controller noted that "No receipts are forthcoming".
Therefore, for the purpose of a direction under section 13(6) of the Ordinance he thought he could not believe the respondent (petitioner herein).
2. Learned counsel has contended that the impugned order is against law and facts and because an appeal against such an order is not competent, therefore, this writ petition has been instituted.
3. No doubt sometimes in some cases a direction under section 13(6) of the Ordinance might look oppressive but that by itself is not enough to ingore the ratio decidendi of and spirit underlying the rating of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain (1). It was observed that the provisional fixation of current rent and the amount of arrears under the first part of subsection (6) of section 13 "remains pro visional" until it is followed by a final determination or striking off of the tenant's defence. It was also held that fragmentary decisions of the type, as A involved in this case, on preliminary points, leaving the main controversy about the liability of the tenant for ejectment, are most incmvenient and "tend to delay administration of justice".
(1) PLD 1975 SC 457
4. The mischief, their Lordships were at pains to highlight, would be done if instead of appeals the High Court were to entertain writ petitons against directions made by Rent Controllers under first part of subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance. Obviously, if, as a result, and in pursuance, of such a direction, the defence of a tenant is struck off, he would have an immediate remedy by filing an appeal. I do not agree with lenrned counsel that the said remedy would not be efficacious simply because it would be difficult to obtain stay order, when filing an appeal. The practice, however it seems, is to the contrary.
5. Dismissed in limine. in limine.