Case Details

Citation(s)
1952 SLG 143 1952 SLD 143 1952 PLD 258
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision Petition No. 144 of 1950 decided on 29th January, 1952,
S. A. RAHMAN, MUHAMMAD, JAN AND MUHAMMAD KHURSHID ZAMAN, JJ
Sheikh Mehboob Elahi, for Petitioner. B. Z. Kaikaus, for
Respondent.

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF Lahore

VS

Mst. FAHMIDA BEGUM

Law:

Section:

(a) Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (VI of 1947)----------Ss. 2 (b), 15-"Controller"--"Appellate Authority"-Are not Courts; in any case not Courts subordinate to High Court-Revision against their orders not competent-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115. Punjab Courts Act (VI of 1918), S. 44.­ (Kishen Chand & Co. v. Nur Muhammad, P L D 1949 Lah. 30 reversed). The preponderating balance of authority is in favour of the proposition that special Tribunals created under circum­stances analogous to those obtaining under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, VI of 1947, are not Courts and in any case are riot Courts subordinate to the High Court. An order passed, by the Controller or the Appellate Authority under the Act is not revisable by the High Court. Kishen Chand & Co. v. Nur Muhammad, P L D 1949 Lah. 30 reversed. Sultan Ali Nanghiana v. Mian Nur Hussain, P L D 1949 Lah. 301, rel. For the first time the Act of 1947 created the two func­tionaries known as the Controller and Appellate Authority. The very fact that a departure was made from the old position existing in the 1941 Act, makes the intention of the legislature clear that the ordinary Courts were not henceforth to take cognizance of the, dispute envisaged by the Act, Under the 1947 Act, any person could be appointed a Controller and any officer or authority as the appellate authority by a notification to be issued by the Provincial Government. Is issuing such notification, the Provincial Government could not be said to be exercising legislative functions and could not, therefore, confer additional jurisdiction on Subordinate Judges or District judges by these notifications. Even though, therefore, all Subordinate Judges and District judges have been invested with the relevant powers under the Act, the inference by no means follows that they are to function as Courts. The Controller does not appear to be armed with all the powers of a Civil Court under the Act and, therefore, does not seem to be bound by all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Similar is the position with regard to the appellate authority. They can make such enquiry "as they deem fit" in each case. It cannot be…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492