Case Details

Citation(s)
1971 SLG 3001 1971 SLD 3001 = 1971 PLD 1
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
First Appeal No. 17 of 1966, decided on 13th April 1970.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmad, C J
All Nazar for Appellant. Rashid-ud-Din Ahmed for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for
RespondentNo. 2.

MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN-Appellant

VERSUS

AZIZUDDIN AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 15(1)(4)

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15(1) and (4)-Appeal-Subsection (4) only complimentary to subsection (1)-Does not enlarge right of appeal-Appeal not com petent to District Judge under subsection (1)-Not maintainable before High Court. Appeal against the order of Rent Controller, refusing the appellant to be impleaded as party to proceedings instituted by landlord for ejectment of tenant, was dismissed by District Judge as not maintainable under subsection (1) of section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The appellant thereafter filed first appeal directly before High Court with the contention that an appeal which is not competent to the District Judge, lies to the High Court. Stress was laid, on behalf of the appellant, on the words "class of cases" in sub section (4) of section 15 and it was argued that the appeal fell in a "class of cases" which is not covered by section 4, 10, 12 or 13 of the Ordinance in terms of subsection (1) of section 15 and by the very fact that it was not appealable under subsection (1) of section 15, it should be considered appealable under subsec tion (4) of section 15. It was contended that since there was no authority under subsection (1) of section 15, to hear appeal against such order an appeal could be filed directly to High Court under subsection (4) of section 15, because of the words "if an appellate authority was not appointed in respect of any . . . . . class of cases, any party aggrieved by an order of the Controller may . . . . prefer an appeal in writing to the High Court" appearing in subsection (4) of section 15. Held: the absence of an appellate Authority to hear appeals in respect of any area or class of cases can be relevant only if such appeals be competent to such an appellate Authority. If an appeal is not competent to an appellate Authority then it will be a futile exercise to appoint such an Authority and it would be without any purpose to make a provision that if an appellate Authority is not appointed, then an appeal can be preferred to the High Court. The appointment of an appellate Authority presumes the exis tence…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register