Respondent No.2 had instituted the ejectment petition qua House No.279, Amar Sidhu, Lahore Cantonment, Lahore, statedly in occupation of the petitioners as tenant. The ejectment petition was contested by the petitioners whereafter a preliminary issue as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was framed. Evidence led by the parties was recorded by the Rent Controller, Lahore and eventually the ejectment petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, vide order, dated 21-5-1997. Appeal filed by respondent No.1 there against was, however, accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 13-9-1999 and the eviction order was passed against the petitioners. This is writ petition there against.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that besides the order of the learned Additional District Judge, being illegal, the ejectment petition itself was not competent before the Rent Controller, Lahore, inasmuch as the premises subject-matter of the ejectment petition is situated within the Cantonment Board limits and it is the Additional Rent Controller Cantonment Board, Lahore, which could only entertain and adjudicate the-ejectment petition. It is contended that the question of jurisdiction can be raised and agitated at any stage of the proceedings. The name of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 duly appears in the cause list, however, since morning none has entered appearance despite the fact that the case was kept in waiting till the later part of the day.
The petition thus has been heard ex parte.
3. Without adverting and embarking upon the merits and respective pleas of the parties, suffice it to observe that the amendment sought to be made in the writ petition aimed at to raise the question of jurisdiction, has been allowed vide separate order passed in C.M. No. 299 of 1999. It may be observed that the question of jurisdiction can be raised by the party at any stage of the proceedings even if not taken before a lower tribunal or the Appellate Court. Reference may be made to Haji Abdul Satter v. Additional District Judge. Rawalpindi and others (1984 SCMR 925),wherein the point as to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was raised for the first time before the High Court in writ petition and it was observed that ."The appellant's objection to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller based on the ground of the property being an industrial concern had no doubt been taken for the first time in the writ petition but there is no absolute rule that objection to jurisdiction of the Rent Controller if not taken before him or the Appellate Court can in no case be taken in the writ jurisdiction. In this connection reference can be made to the decisions of this Court in Chittaranjan Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Staff Union (PLD 1971 SC 197) and Rashid Ahmad v.
State (PLD 1972 SC 271)". It may also be observed that the very title of the ejectment petition filed by respondent No.1, is indicative of the fact that the property was situated within the cantonment limits of Lahore to which Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, is applicable and the learned Additional Controller, Cantonment Board, Lahore, could only exercise jurisdiction under the law. The point of jurisdiction thus is not even dependent upon any question of fact and E can be allowed to be raised and entertained for the first time by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Insofar as the effect of the adjudication made in this case by the Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, is concerned, the same had no legal efficacy inasmuch as in view of The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Mohammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331), such orders are to be treated as void "when it is made by a Court, Tribunal, or other authority, which had no jurisdiction either as regards the subject-matter, the pecuniary value or the territorial limits where the dispute arose. Such an order would amount to "a usurpation of power unwarranted by law, and accordingly it would be a nullity". The adjudication of the ejectment petition filed by respondent No. 1, by the Rent Controller or learned Additional District Judge, Lahore as Appellate Court, thus does not stand on better footing than without jurisdiction which has no legal effect whatsoever. There assumption of jurisdiction m the matter was unwarranted by law and to be declared so in view of Sind Employees' Social Security Institution v. Dr. Mumtaz Ali Taj and another (PLD 1975 SC 450).
As a consequence of the above, the ejectment petition filed by respondent No.2 being incompetent before the Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Lahore is liable to be returned for presentation before the proper forum. The same is directed to be returned to her for presentation before the proper forum and its adjudication in accordance with law. The writ petition is accepted in the above terms. No order as to costs.