IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P. No.S-1870 of 2016 _____________________________________________________
Date Order With Signature Of Judge
__________________________________________________________
Fresh case
1.For orders on CMA No. 8214/16
2.For hg of main case
3.For orders on CMA No. 8215/16
18.01.2017.
Mr. Hakim Ali Mallah, advocate for petitioner.
This Constitutional Petition is directed against the orders dated 08.01.2015 and 25.10.2016, passed under sections 16(1) and 16(3) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as “Ordinance 1979), respectively, by the Ist. Rent Controller, Malir Karachi in Rent Application No. 05 of 2013.
2. This petition was fixed on 16.11.2016 when the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to satisfy the Court on the point of maintainability of this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied by the petitioner/ opponent in his written statement to the rent application and since no other remedy is available against the impugned orders under the Ordinance, 1979, this petition has been maintained by the petitioner.
4. It appears from the perusal of the record that the application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance was filed by the respondent No. 2/ applicant in Rent Case No. 05/2013 on 11.12.2014, which was allowed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 08.01.2015, directing the petitioner/ opponent to deposit current as well as future monthly rent till disposal of the case at the rate of Rs.32,000/- before the Nazir of the Court on or before 10th day of each English calendar month till disposal of the case and; thereafter, on 10.08.2015, respondent No. 2/ applicant filed an application under section 16(3) of the Ordinance, 1979 for the withdrawal of the rent deposited by the petitioner/ opponent, which was allowed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 25.10.2016.
5. The impugned orders are interlocutory/ interim in nature and the same are even not appealable under the Ordinance, 1979. The provision of appeal has been provided under section 21 of the Ordinance, 1979 by the Legislature against the final order of the Rent Controller. The petitioner will have opportunity to file the appeal if the final order goes against him. However, the instant Constitutional Petition is not maintainable against interlocutory /interim order of Rent Controller. The reason being that if Constitutional Petitions are to be entertained, the very purpose of section 21 of the Ordinance, 1979 would be defeated.
6. For the foregoing facts and reasons, the instant Constitutional Petition is dismissed in limine,accordingly being not maintainable, along with listed applications.
JUDGE