| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3230 = 1975 SLD 3230 = 1975 PLD 616 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Second Appeal No. 425 of 1969, decided on 7th April 1975.
Presented By: Abdul Hafeez Memon, J
Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Bashir and others P L D 1974 Lah. 446 and Abdul Ghafoor v. Ahmed Kunhi P L D 1969 S C 424 ref. Nisar Ahmad v. Nazar Muhammad P L D 1974 Lab. 489 distinguished. S. S. Hamid and Khurshid Alam for Appellant.
Respondent No. 1 (absent). A. K. Niazi for
Respondent No. 2.
Second Appeal No. 425 of 1969, decided on 7th April 1975.
Presented By: Abdul Hafeez Memon, J
Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Bashir and others P L D 1974 Lah. 446 and Abdul Ghafoor v. Ahmed Kunhi P L D 1969 S C 424 ref. Nisar Ahmad v. Nazar Muhammad P L D 1974 Lab. 489 distinguished. S. S. Hamid and Khurshid Alam for Appellant.
Respondent No. 1 (absent). A. K. Niazi for
Respondent No. 2.
MUHAMMAD YASIN-Appellant
VERSUS
FATEH MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)
Section: 13, 15
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
Section: 30
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) Ss. 13 & 15 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Reha bilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30-Application for ejectment of ,tenant under S 13 of Ordinance VI of 1959-Question whether notice under S. 30 of Act XXVIII of 1958 was dully served-Controller holding that no notice under S. 30 was served-Appellate authority in appeal by landlord reversing finding and at the same time ordering ejectment of tenant forthwith on ground that tenant had taken up false plea and denied tenancy-High Court, in second appeal, held, that the proper order to be made was to remand the case for disposal on merits by the Controller ; appellate Court could not usurp jurisdic tion of Controller. It is well established that when a tribunal is vested with a jurisdiction, -how low it may be, it is that tribunal which has to exercise its jurisdiction :and any exercise of that jurisdiction by a higher tribunal without allowing for former to exercise it, will be usurping the jurisdiction of the lower tribunal which is not permissible in law. The Rent Controller had held the application filed by the landlord to 'be not maintainable in law on the ground that statutory notice under section 30 of the Act had not been served and for that reason did not go further to examine and decide the application on merits. Now that the District Judge found that the notice had been served, it was only ,appropriate that he ought to have remanded the case to the Rent Controller to decide the application on merits and should not have ordered ejectment forthwith on the grounds that the appellant tenant had raised false plea of notice and denied tenancy, as this was neither the issue before him nor ,was it his function. It was the function of the Rent Controller who had to perform it by exercising the jurisdiction vested in him. Date of hearing : 31st March 1975. …