1. ' The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that a lease Agreement was executed between M/s. WK Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. And M/s. Ravian Knitwear (Private) Ltd. On 15-11-1996. The contents of lease deed reveal that Ravians Knitwear got the said unit at a total monthly rent of Rs,40,000 having machinery and equipment as per schedule attached with the lease Agreement.
2. Respondent No,1 filed ejectment petition against the petitioner. The contents of the ejectment petition reveal that the petitioner has taken on rent five shops Nos.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 situated on ground floor including half floor of the hall on the 1st floor and hall on the second floor against monthly rent of Rs,40,000 on the basis of the rent deed executed between the petitioner and respondent No,1 on 31-10-1998. The contents of the ejectment petition further reveal that petitioner refused to pay rent of the aforesaid premises since January, 1998 and committed willful default to pay rent to the respondents and amount of Rs,7,20,720,000 is outstanding against the petitioner till 17-6-1999. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Rent Controller without deciding the question of relationship of landlord and tenant, directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent @ Rs,40,000 per month w,e,f, January, 1998 to August, 1999 total being amounting Rs,8 lac till 29-10-1999; hence the present writ petition.
2. Petitioner's counsel stated that petitioner specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant; originally lease Agreement, dated 15-11-1996 executed between M/s. W.K. Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd.
3. And M/s. Ravians Knitwear (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Chief Executive. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner is Chief Executive of M/s. Ravians Knitwear (Pvt.) Ltd. He further stated that in written statement in reply of para.2 on merits, it is specifically mentioned that M/s. Ravians Knitwear (Pvt.)
4. Ltd. Agreed to pay Rs,8,000 rent per month in future and paid in advance rent of four months alongwith security of Rs,20,000. Subsequently, the petitioner's firm the demand of respondents paid Rs,1 lac more to the respondents as security and agreed to pay double rent. Para.2 of the written statement further reveals that respondents obtained signatures of the petitioner on blank stamp papers. The petitioner never in his personal capacity admitted respondents as landlord, therefore, ejectment petition filed by respondent against the petitioner in his personal capacity is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- (PLD 1967 Kar.71); (1981 CLC 689); (1982 CLC 2455); (1995 CLC 66).
5. (1987 SCMR 1607).
6. ' He urged that it is the duty and obligation of the Rent Controller to decide the preliminary objection first regarding the existence or nonexistence of the relationship of landlord and tenant.
7. He relied upon (PLD 1963 Lah.390).
3. Learned counsel for respondents contended that petitioner executed rent deed in his personal capacity as is evident from the lease deed, dated 13-6-1997 and 11-8-1998. He further stated that petitioner raised preliminary objection and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant but accepted the same in his written statement in reply of paras.2 and 4, therefore, Rent Controller was justified to pass order against the petitioner under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable against the interim order as the principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- (1976 SCMR 450); (PLD 1978 SC 185), (1996 SCMR 1165); (PLD 1978 Lah.1459) and (PLD 1995 Lah.392); (1998 CLC 460).
8. ' He summed up his arguments that learned Rent Controller exercised his discretion in accordance with law, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused tlrecord. It is settled proposition of law that object of the legislation contained in the Ordinance is to ensure quick disposal of cases relating to dispute between the landlord and tenant.
9. If every order passed by Rent Controller, during the hearing of a case, is allowed to be challenged by means of writ petition it might not only amount to abuse of the Constitutional jurisdiction but would also defeat the very purpose for which the Ordinance was enacted. In view of the aforesaid reasons that appeals against the interim order was disallowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the principle laid down in Ibrahim's case (PLD 1975 SC 457) because such appeals were likely to result in fragmentary decisions which tend to delay the administration of justice. The aforesaid judgment was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme and approved the dictum laid down in Ibrahim's case in Rashid Ahmed's case (PLD 1978 SC 185). Generally the writ petition is not competent against interlocutory order passed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. I am fortified by the judgments of Superior Courts, (1982 CLC 343); (PLD 1978 Lah.1459); (PLD 1983 SC 21). The aforesaid is general principle; there are exceptions to the aforesaid principle specially where the relationship of landlord and tenant was specifically denied. Reliance is placed on Full Bench's judgment of this Court (PLD 1963 Lah.390) and observed as under:-- "When an objection is taken to the jurisdiction of the tribunal, that objection must be treated as preliminary objection and must be resolved before taking any further action."
10. ' The aforesaid proposition of law was considered by my learned brother Mian Allah Nawaz, J., after mentioning all the case-law on the subject and observed as follows in Tariq Ali Sheikh's case (1998 CLC 460):-- "The ratio deducible from the above is that in a case whether relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, the Rent Controller is bound under the law to treat such objection as preliminary one and is to tentatively determine this question in the light of material brought by the parties or such material which parties might produce. This exercise has to be done by the Rent Controller before passing order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance."
11. ' The aforesaid proposition of law has been considered by my learned brother Sayed Najam-ul- Hassan Kazmi, J. In Muhammad Saleem's case (1998 CLC 1883), after considering all the case-law on the subject and observed as under:-- "The learned Rent Controller, did not resolve this controversy nor determined the objection in regard to his jurisdiction and on the contrary, hurriedly proceeded to direct, deposit of rent, in terms of section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The question, which, thus, arise, is as to whether the course adopted by the learned Rent Controller was justified, in the given circumstances. It is settled Rule that if an objection to the jurisdiction of a tribunal or Court is raised, the same shall be decided as a preliminary issue before passing any order which can be passed on assumption of jurisdiction. "
12. ' The learned Rent Controller passed order under section 13(6) in violation of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the superior Courts, therefore, order is without lawful authority. It is settled proposition of law that a Judge must wear all the laws of the Country on the sleeve of his robe and failure of the counsel to properly advise him is not a complete excuse in the matter as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments: ' Muhammad Sarwar's case (PLD PLD 1969 SC 278).
13. ' Salma Feroze's case (PLD 1992 SC 263).
14. ' The judgments cited by respondents' counsel are distinguished on facts and law as the relationship of landlord and tenants was denied specifically in the aforesaid cases whereas in the present case as mentioned above, the petitioner denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Rent Controller passed the order under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction. Ordinance without deciding the assumption of jurisdictioh and in this view, he acts in a wholly fanciful and arbitrary manner, such a conduct could not evidently be approved of, for it would not advance ends of justice and may work immense hardship and cause irretrievable injury to a party to the litigation as the principle laid down by this Court in Muhammad Tufail's case (1993 CLC 655). In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Rent Controller with the direction to decide the question of jurisdiction as preliminary issue and then proceed in the matter. It is, however, clarified that any observation made in this judgment shall not influence the learned Rent Controller in deciding the question of jurisdiction according to provisions of Ordinance. The learned Rent Controller shall proceed with the eviction proceedings on merits only if the objection as to jurisdiction is decided in negative, the proceedings shall be concluded by the learned Rent Controller positively within two months under limitation to D.R.(J) of this Court. The parties are directed to appear before learned Rent Controller on 1-12-1999. There is no order as to costs.