NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.-- The petitioner herein was respondent before High Court. Respondent Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan's wife had let out a part of the demised premises to one Pakistan Progressive Education Society on a monthly rent of Rs. 1700/- for running a school. Consequent upon promulgation of MLR 118 in 1972, ti e entire building i.e. The part let out for running the school as well as the remaining portion in occupation of its owner, which was being used as residence, was taken over by the Education Department of the petitioner. The respondent approached High Court through CP No D-1346/1974 and a learned D.B., vide judgment dated 12/10/1988, held that only the management of school could be taken over under MLR 118 and the demised premises continued to remain property of the respondent . Since no rent was paid, the respondent filed an eviction application before Rent Controller, but the same was dismissed as premises of the schools and colleges, nationalised under MLR 118, were exempted from operation of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. 1979. Thereafter, respondent moved the Provincial Mohtasib by way of complaint, who passed an order dated 11.12.1997, directing that accumulated rent upto November, 1997 amounting to Rs. 1,255,104/- be paid to the respondent within 3 months and future rent be paid to him by 15. Of every calendar month. This order was not complied with However, later on arrears of rent were paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
2. It appears that Provincial Ombudsma n on said complaint passed an order that in case of failure of payment of arrears, as well as, future rent, the education department was liable to be evicted.
High Court held that above order was valid, binding and had to be given effect, as it was never challenged. It was also held that the petitioner could not escape liability from being evicted.
3. -It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that proceedings before provincial Ombudsman relating to eviction and even the direction for payment of arrears of rent were totally misconceived and the order passed by him in that regard is void ab initio and of no legal effect.
4. Above contention requires consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. Status quo be maintained till final disposal of this appeal, which shall be fixed for regular hearing within 6 months.