' An ejectment petition filed by respondent No,1 against the petitioner is pending with respondent No,2. On 23-2-2001 respondent No,2 proceeded to frame issues in the case and adjourn the case for recording evidence of respondent No,1 to 15-3-2001. At the same time he took notice of the fact that order in terms of section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is to be passed and directed the appearance of the petitioner on 15-3-2001. The case was then adjourned on several dates for various reasons. Ultimately the matter was taken up on 1-6-2001 and the petitioner was directed to deposit rent for the period January, 2000 to December, 2000 before 15-6- 2001, while future rent was ordered to be deposited before 5th day of the month. Regarding the period January, 2001 to May, 2001 respondent No,1 admitted that he had received the rent for the said period sent to him by money order under protest. It may be noted that the ejectment application was filed on 12-7-2000 and the petitioner put in appearance on 8-9-2000. The learned Rent Controller further provided in the said order that the said rent for the period January, 2000 to December, 2000 is not to be withdrawn by respondent No, 1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Rent Controller would not be having jurisdiction to pass an order under section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 after he had framed the issues. Relies on the cases of Altaf Amin v. Qazi Muhammad Naeem and 4 others PLD 1987 Peshawar 148 and Kohitex (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Muhammad Mukhtar and 2 others 1995 CLC
781. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 on the other hand, contends that the learned Rent Controller had proceeded to pass the said order by correcting himself well in time and even otherwise the mere fact that the order was passed after framing of the issues would not render the same void. Further contends that this writ petition has been filed against an interlocutory order and would not be competent.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record appended with this writ petition, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. As stated by me above, it is true that on 23-2-2000, in the first instance the Rent Controller did proceed to frame issues and to adjourn the case for recording evidence of respondent No,1 but then corrected himself promptly and proceeded to adjourn the case for passing of an order under the said section 17(8) of the said Act. I, therefore, do find that no violation of section 17(8) of the said Act stands committed as such. So far as the said judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the case of Mst. Mahmooda Begum v. Mst. Mahmooda Jan 1973 SCMR 131 wherein the apex Court has held that in case the Rent Controller omits to pass an order for deposit of rent before framing of issues, it would not mean that he is deprived of jurisdiction to do so at a' subsequent stage. Thus, nothing turns on the said contention of the learned counsel.
4. The objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No,1 to the maintainability of this writ petition is also not without force. A Division Bench of this Court had in the case of Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Saratul Fatima and another PLD 1978 Lahore 1459 depreciated the practice of filing writ petition against interlocutory orders passed in ejectment petition with the observation that this would defeat the very purpose of the provisions made under the said law prohibiting filing of appeals against such-like orders. I, therefore, do hold that the presentic writ petition cannot be maintained against the said interlocutory order.
5. I find that this writ petition came up before this Court on 29-5-2001. The impugned order was suspended qua the deposit of arrears. On the said date 16 days were still available to the petitioner to comply with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner shall, however, now make the deposit of the arrears as directed by the learned Rent Controller before 19-8-2001.