IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, KARACHI
Const.
Petition No. S-1961 of 2017
Abdul Ghaffar
.
.
Petitioner
Versus
Vth Additional District Judge,
Karachi East and others
.............Respondents
Date of Hearing: - 31.08.2018
Mr. Babar Ali Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate for the Respondent
No. 3.
J U D G M E N T
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: The present petition impugns the orders dated 03-05-2017 passed
by learned Rent Controller-IV, Karachi East in Rent Case No. 58/2013 as well as
order dated 08-08-2017 passed by and learned Additional District Judge-V,
Karachi East in FRA 110/2017. The learned Additional District Judge has
dismissed the rent appeal of the petitioner solely on the ground that he has
challenged an interlocutory order, which is not amounting to final order of the
learned Rent Controller.
2.
Factual matrix of the case is that the respondent
filed a rent case before the learned rent controller under Section 15 of SRPO,
1979 in respect of shop bearing No. L-22 & 23 measuring 32 square yards in
house No. 225-R, Sector 8/A, Gulshan-e-Zahoor, Ibne Sina Lines, Karachi for
ejectment of respondent No. 3 on the ground of default in payment of rent and
amenities charges as well as on the ground of personal bona fide need.
3. The Respondent No.1 filed an
application under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, which
was allowed and the Respondent No.3 intimated Respondent No.4 regarding the
order through legal notice. Thereafter the Petitioner filed an application
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading as party in the proceedings of the
said rent case, which was allowed. However, the learned Rent Controller did not
allow the application of Respondent No.3, filed under Section 16(2) SRPO by
saying that it would be decided at the final stage of case. The said order was
not challenged as the same attained finality. The Appellant, who was joined as
Opponent No.2 in the proceedings of rent case, also filed Written Statement,
stated therein that the Respondent No.4 is the tenant of the Appellant in
respect of Shop No.LC-23, House No. R-225, Sector 8/A, Ibne Sina Lines, Karachi
since 1995. Thereafter the Petitioner filed a statement before the learned
Tribunal that the Respondent NO.4 is ready to vacate the Shop No.LC-23, House
No. R-225, Sector 8/A, Ibne Sina Lines, Karachi, therefore the rent case has
become infructuous. The learned Rent Controller by passing the order dated
03.04.2017, held that the matter shall be disposed of on merits after adducing
evidence by the respective parties and directed the Respondent No.4/Opponent
No.1 to deposit the keys with the COC of the Court, if he desires to vacate the
premises in question, but instead of depositing the keys with the COC of the
Curt, the Respondent No.4 / Opponent No.1 handed over the keys to the Petitioner
and vacated the premises in question on 15.04.2017 and filed such statement
before the learned Tribunal. Subsequently, the learned Rent Controller passed
order dated 03.03.2017 thereby directed the Petitioner / Opponent No.2 to
deposit the keys of the premises with the Nazir of the Court within 7 days,
which order was assailed by the Petitioner before the Additional District Judge
under an FRA. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the said FRA
through impugned order on the ground that it is not a final order.
4. Mr. Babar Ali Shaikh, learned counsel
for the Petitioner, while addressing the Court submits that as the application
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been allowed, besides under application Section
16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, the order for depositing rent
under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance was practically
recalled, therefore, it will not be justified that the keys be deposited with
the Nazir. According to him, by depositing keys, the entire proceedings will be
defeated and it will amount to allow the application of the Applicant. He
submits that previously the FRA was filed and by consent the matter was
remanded to decide the matter on merits but the demand by the learned Rent
Controller for depositing keys will futile the entire merits. He submits that
the Appellate Court has already granted stay in another proceeding in favour of
the Petitioner; as such the order for demanding keys is not justified.
5. Mr. Muhammad Farooq, learned counsel
for the Respondent No.3 submits that the matter has not yet been ended and the
learned Rent Controller has clearly mentioned in his order that he would decide
the entire controversy in respect of the rent on merits after adducing
evidence. According to him, order impugned before the first Appellate Court is
an interlocutory order, as such the FRA was rightly dismissed.
6. I have heard the arguments and have
gone through the relevant record especially the impugned orders.
7. Since the controversy between the
parties is that the Respondent No.3 is claiming his status as owner/landlord,
while the Petitioner is claiming his status as Collector of rent and subsequent
purchaser. The controversy is required to be resolved through evidence that who
is entitled for the possession of the premises in question. In such a
situation, the learned Rent Controller is justified in making an interim
arrangement by demanding keys of vacated shop, which were required to be
deposited with the Nazir of the Court. Since the order, passed by the learned
Rent Controller is purely an
interlocutory order and law is very much clear that only a final order can be
appealable, therefore, the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court is
within the four corners of law. Resultantly, the instant petition appears to be
meritless, hence through a short order dated 31.08.2018, for reasons to be
recorded later on, it was dismissed, these are the reasons for the said short
order.
J U D G E