1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. K- 100 and K-102 of 1969, which arise out of an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Quetta Circuit, dated the 5th August 1969.
2. Respondents brought two applications under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for ejectment of the petitioner from house No. 4-8/18, McConghey Road, Quetta and house and godown situated on Khasra No. 4395, Muhkum Street, Quetta, on the ground of non-payment of rent for 17 months from the 1st May 1964 to the 30th September 1965, at the rate of Rs. 42 p.m. And on the ground that the premises in dispute were required for reconstruction. The petitioner resisted these applications. He denied the title of the respondents and claimed that he was not their tenant. He further contended that he had constructed a godown at the cost of Rs.
3. 4,000 and the respondents were not entitled to evict him without payment of compensation. The Rent Controller, on the 27th July 1967, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the property in dispute. This order was set aside by the First Appellate Authority in Civil Appeals Nos. 113 of 1967 and 127 of 1967 by a consolidated order dated the 31st October 1967. Respondents filed Second Appeals against the said order which were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan on the 5th August 1969. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was tenant of the respondents and as he has defaulted in the payment of rent, the Rent Controller was justified in ordering his eviction from the premises in dispute. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order of the High Court.
4. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's eviction has been ordered without providing any compensation to the petitioner in respect of the godown constructed by him on the plot of land let out to him. The learned counsel was unable to satisfy us that there was any provision in the Rent Control Ordinance under which any such order could be passed by the Rent Controller. In any case, it is open to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance in this behalf in separate proceedings against the respondents. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.