1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This petition is directed against the Order of a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1977. By Order dated 18-5-1977 the High Court found no merits in the above petition and rejected it in limine.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of shop No. 744/2, Saddar Bazar, Nowahera. The respondent filed an application for ejectment under section 17 of the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of reconstruction, before the Rent Controller, Nowshera Cantt. After recording the evidence, the learned Rent Controller passed an ejectment order against the petitioner on 13-5-1976 directing him to hand over the possession of the disputed shop to the respondent. He further directed the respondent to reconstruct the shop as early as possible and then hand aver it to the petitioner on the rent assessed by the relevant authorities. It is alleged that the petitioner asked the respondent to carry out this direction of the learned Rent Controller but ho did not stick to his word and filed an appeal under section 24 of the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 and challenged the aforesaid direction of the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner filed his cross objections under Order XLVI, rule 22, C. P. C. But the same were not entertained as they were found barred by time. After hearing the parties, the appellate authority accepted the appeal of the respondent, and directions of the Rent Controller, referred to above, were declared to be without lawful authority by the District Judge's Order dated 12-3-1977. Thereupon the petitioner challenged this Order in writ petition, referred to above, which was dismissed in limine by Order dated 18-5-1977. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said Order.
3. In support of the petition, Mr. Fazal Haq, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 and the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance. 1959 are pari materia and tie provisions of the later Act are applicable to cases arising out of Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. There is no provision in the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 empowering the Rent Controller to issue a direction to the landlord to band over possession to the tenant, after reconstructing the property. There is also no ambiguity on this point to the said enactment. In the absence of such a provision, provisions made in the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 cannot be made applicable to the cases arising out under section 17 of the Pakistan Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. In that view of the matter, we do not find any force in the petition which is dismissed.