' The respondent filed Rent Case No,48 of 1999 for eviction of the appellant from that No, 18-30- C/22, East Street, Phase I, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi. In She written statement, the appellant/tenant took a plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on the ground that the flat was sold to him by the respondent. The Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment, proceeded to pass an order. On 20th April, 2000, directing the appellant/tenant to deposit rent arrears etc. Compliance with this order was not made by the appellant/tenant and, consequently, the Additional Controller of Rents passed the impugned order, dated 5th July, 2000, striking off the defence of the appellant/tenant. These orders are subject of the present appeal.
2. Mr. Mukhtar Hussain Naqvi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Additional Controller of Rents proceeded to pass an order for deposit of rent under section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 without giving a definite finding on the issue relating to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
3. Mr. Shakir Naqashbandi, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was not clearly denied by the appellant but he had admitted the agreement in respect thereof. Mr. Naqashbandi referred to the observations of the Additional Controller of Rents made in the impugned order relating to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the case of Haji Juma Khan v. Haji Zarin Khan PLD 1999 SC 1101. This ruling is distinguishable on facts and it is not on the point that without a definite finding on the issue of existence of such relationship, the Additional Controller of Rents can proceed to pass an order for deposit of rent.
4. Mr. Shakir Naqashbandi has also relied upon the case of Syed Muhammad Alimullah v. Mst.
Seema Begum PLD 1987 Kar.
526. This is also distinguishable because in that case the Rent Controller has given a finding about existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
5. Another ruling, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, is the case of Iqbal and others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another PLD 1991 SC 242. This case is also of no help to the respondent because it is on the subject that can be considered by the Rent Controller in the present case, while determining the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties.
6. In a case where existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is denied in the written statement, it is incumbent upon the Rent Controller to give a definite finding on this issue before proceeding to pass an order for deposit of rent or any other further proceedings. Unless there is a definite finding in such a case about existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to proceed further with the case. This has not been done in the present case and the Additional Controller of Rents has given such an observation, relating to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, in the impugned order whereby he struck off the defence of the appellant/tenant. The impugned order is without jurisdiction in the circumstances and it is set aside. The case is remanded to the Additional Controller of Rents for first determining the issue relating to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, in case of an affirmative finding on such issue, he should proceed further to pass an order for deposit of rent etc. The appeal is allowed accordingly.