ORDER SHEET.
C.P. No. 95 of 2003.
C.P. No. 96 of 2003.
C.P. No. 199 of 2003.
C.P. No. 200 of 2003.
Date of hearing: 25.4.2003.
Petitioner: Nasir Ahmed and Tahir Ahmed in C.P. Nos.95 & 96/2003
through Mr. Jamil Ahmed, Advocate.
Habib Hasim in C.P. Nos. 199 and 200/2003 through Miss.
Firdous Farride, Advocate.
Respondents: Zaheer and others and District & Sessions Judge & others,
through Mr. Mumtaz A. Shaikh, Advocate.
**************
MUHAMMAD SADIQ LAGHARI, J This order shall disposed of all the above four petitions wherein common question is involved.
The brief facts are that Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are jointly owner of Hamid Building standing on M.A. Jinnah Road, Merit road Karachi. Four separate shops/offices are individually on rent with each of the petitioners in the above mentioned petitions. The owners/landlords filed rent cases against each of the petitioner for ejectment from the premises. The rent cases were instituted in the Court of VIIth Senior Civil Judge/ Rent Controller (South) Karachi. The petitioners/tenants in their respective written statement , challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the VIIth Rent Controller on the ground that the demised premises were within the limits of Napier Police Station which was within the territorial jurisdiction of Vth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller South Karachi. They also filed separate applications before the VIIth Rent Controller for return of the Rent Cases for want of territorial jurisdiction.
After receiving these applications the VIIth Rent Controller made Reference to the District Judge South Karachi for transfer of all the four rent cases from her Court to the Court having jurisdiction over them. The learned District Judge by administrative order dated 4.2.2002 transferred the rent cases to the Court of Vth Senior Civil Judge. After that the petitioners/tenants filed above mentioned Petition challenging the legality of the Reference made by VIIth Rent Controller for transfer of the Rent Cases and the order of the transfer of the rent cases passed by the learned District Judge South Karachi on 4.10-.2003.
It was argued by Syed Jamil Ahmed the learned Advocate for the petitioners that on coming to know that the demised premises were not situated within her territorial jurisdiction the legal and proper way for the VIIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller was to return the rent cases to the landlord for presentation before the competent Court but she adopted illegal course by sending Reference to the learned District Judge. That the learned District Judge also acted illegally and without jurisdiction by transferring the cases on administrative ground. Elaborating his contentions the learned Advocate stated that since VIIth Rent Controller had no jurisdiction over the matter the Reference made by her was an act corum non judice. Continuing with his submissions the learned Advocate stated that the learned District Judge could only transfer the cases which were legally and validly pending before VIIth Rent Controller, therefore his order is also illegal.
Mr. Mumtaz A.Shaikh, learned Advocate for the contesting respondent defended the impugned order, saying simply that the learned District Judge was fully competent to transfer the rent cases from the Court of one Rent Controller to another on or without any reference there far.
It is admitted position that according to the distribution of business among the Civil Judge functioning in District South Karachi the Vth Senior Civil Judge was to entertain and dispose of the cases arising within the territorial limits of Napier Police Station. It is also admitted that the demised premises are situated within the limits of Napier Police Station. It is also correct that according to the distribution of the business by the District Judge u/s 15 of Civil Court Ordinance 1962 among the Civil Judges the cases pertaining to the area within the limits of Napier Police Station were to be dealt with by Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South. However, it is to be seen as to whether distribution of business by the District Judge among the Civil Judges posted in District South is an arrangement without affecting the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Judges or otherwise. Infact it is the High Court which can define local limits of the Civil Judges under Section 10 of Civil Court Ordinance 1962. For proper decision it will be appropriate to reproduce Section 10 . It reads as under:-
“10. Local limits of jurisdiction.---(1) The local limits of the jurisdiction of Civil Judge shall be such as the High Court may define.
(2) When the High Court posts a Civil Judge to a district, the local limits of the district shall in the absence of any direction to the contrary, be deem3ed to be the local limits of his jurisdiction.”
The bare look at the two Sub-Sections brings out clearly that it is only the High Court which can define the local limits of jurisdiction of the Civil Judges and in absence of any direction by the High Court to the contrary the local limits of entire District shall be deemed to be the local limits of his jurisdiction. As High Court has not issued any notification defining the local limits of the jurisdiction of VIIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller South Karachi the local limits of the entire district are within her territorial jurisdiction.
Distribution of business by the District Judge under Section 15 of the Ordinance does not affect the territorial jurisdiction of VIIth Senior Civil Judge South Karachi. The business can be distributed in more than one ways. The District Judge can fix days for entertaining and proceeding with the cases by each Civil Judge in his District by rotation. For instance Civil JudgeNo.1 to receive and proceed with the cases instituted between Ist and 7th of the calendar month and Civil Judge No.II to receive and proceed with the cases instituted from 8th to 15th. Therefore the distribution of business can not be treated as factor determining the territorial jurisdiction. This view gets support from the two decisions of this Court (1) Sharaf Faridi PTC (applicant) Vs. M.L.Shahani PTC (respondent), P.L.J. 1974 Karachi 322 (2) Jamil Ahmed Vs. Syed Muhammad Ali and others, PLD 1977 Karachi 901. In the above cases it has been held that the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Judges can not be determined on the basis of the distribution of the business among the Civil Judge by the District Judge.
In exercise of power under Section 4 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 Government of Sindh issued Notification bearing No. VIII(3) SOJ/75 on 14.10.1980, this Notification reads as under:-
“No. VII(3) SOJ/75.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the Government of Sindh are pleased to appoint ALL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGES in the Province and CIVIL JUDGE, Badin and JOINT CIVIL JUDGE, Shikarput with not less than three years service as CIVIL JUDGE, to act as CONTROLLERS within their respective jurisdiction.”
The bare reading of this notification brings it out that all the Senior Civil Judges in the province have the jurisdiction to act as Controller within their respective jurisdiction. The words “respective jurisdiction” would mean a territorial jurisdiction. Thus it is clear that territorial jurisdiction of VIIth Senior Civil Judge was his/her territorial jurisdiction as Rent Controller also.
From the above it is clear that the territorial jurisdiction of VIIth Senior Civil Judge & Rent Controller (South) Karachi was the local limits of District South.
Since the rent cases entertained by VIIth Senior Civil Judge / Rent Controller related to the premises within her territorial jurisdiction the Reference made by her for transfer of those cases from her Court in the light of distribution of business did not suffer from any illegality. Also the administrative order passed by the learned District Judge transferring four rent cases did not suffer from any legal defect. Under Section 4(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance the learned District Judge was competent to transfer any rent case from one Rent Controller to another. The words “any case” are of much significance and confer very wide powers upon District Judge in respect of the transfer of cases. They indicate that the legislature wanted not to put limitation upon the powers of District Judge in respect of the transfer of the cases from one Rent Controller to the other.
The result of above discussion is that neither the Reference made by the VIIth Rent Controller for transfer of the cases nor the order of transfer of these case passed by the learned District Judge South, Karachi suffer from jurisdictional or any other legal defect calling for interference in the constitutional jurisdiction. The petitions are therefore dismissed in limine.
JUDGE