S
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALL SHAH
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI
2-L AND 814-L OF 201
(Against the consolidated order dated 20.2.20 19 passed
by the Lahore High Court in WP No. 246503, 254424-
25, 254408, 254428, 254415, 254418, 254421 &
t' 254411 of 2018)
Haji Muhammad Latif
Versus
Muhammad Sharif & another
Muhammad Aslam & another
Shamim Akhtar & another
Muhammad Riaz & another
Zahida Bibi & another
Ohulam Mustafa & another
Maqbool Kamboh & another
Rehmat Au @ Kala Changar etc.
Ghulam Qadir & another
Petitioner (In all cases)
Respondents (In CP 805-LI 19)
Respondents (In CP 806-LI 19)
Respondents (in CP 807-LII9)
Respondents (in CP 808-L119)
Respondents (in C]' 809-LI1 9)
Respondents (in CP 810-LI19)
Respondents (In CP 811-LI 19)
Respondents (In a' 812-L/19)
Respondents (In a' 814-LI1 9)
For the Petitioner(s) 
Mr. Nadeem ud Din Malik, ASC
For the Respondent(1) 
Pirzada Mamoon Rashid, ASC (VL-Lhr).
Date of Hearing 09.03.202 1
ORDER
Saijad Ali Shah, J.- The petitioners seek leave of this Court
to file appeals against a Common order of the Lahore High Court
I dismissing all the petitions by holding the impugned order of the Rent
Controller as interim whereby the Rent Controller though declined to
grant leave to defend the ejectment petitions but directed the petitioner
to adduce evidence and granted respondents' right to cross examine.
2 Briefly, the petitioner filed nine ejectment petitions against
his different tenants inter alia, on the ground of default, the
respondents having been served, filed applications seeking leave to
defend the ejectment proceedings. The learned Rent Controller, after
hearing the parties, through a common order declined to grant leave to
- 
CPs8O5-Lof2Ol9etc 
2
the tenants to defend the ejectment petitions but fixed all the case for
production of supporting evidence of the land-lord and awarded the
respondents/ tenants a right to cross examine the land lord and his
witnesses. This order of the Rent Controller was challenged by the
petitioner/land-lord before the Lahore High Court by filing writ
petitions asserting the order to be in violation of law, however, the
petitions were dismissed again through a common impugned order by
holding the order of the Rent Controller as interim and, therefore, not
assailable.
3. Learned ASC for the petitioner while inviting our attention
to sub-Section 6 of Section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2009"), contends that the law
provides that in cases where leave to contest is refused or the
respondent has failed to file application for leave to contest within the
stipulated time, the Rent Tribunal shall pass the final order. Further
submits that the Rent Controller after declining the leave to contest
could not have directed the petitioner/land-lord to produce supporting
evidence and to grant opportunity to the respondent-tenants to cross
examine the witnesses, so produced. Per counsel, the law clearly
provides that once the Rent Tribunal refuses to grant leave, it shall
pass final orders, therefore, the order of the Rent Controller directing
the production of supporting evidence and granting opportunity to the
tenant to cross examine, was in violation of Section 22(6) of the Act,
2009 and the High Court, instead of taking note of such illegality
dismissed the petition by holding that the order was interim and the
law did not provide a remedy against the interim order.
4. 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
vehemently contended that the subject order was in the nature of an
CPs8O5-Lof2Ol9etc 
3
- interim order and Section 28(2) of the Act, 2009 clearly bars appeal
against the interlocutory order of the Rent Tribunal, to support his
contention reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the
case of President All Pakistan Women Association Peshawar Cantt. vs.
Muhammad AkbarAwan (2020 SCMR 260).
5.
We have heard the learned counsel for the respective
le parties, perused the record and the relevant provisions of the Act,
2009.
6.
There is no cavil to the proposition that sub-Section 2 of
Section 28 of the Act, 2009 bars filing of appeal against an interim
order and there are also no two views that in cases where a statute
specifically bars the remedy of appeal against an interim order then
such statutory command ordinarily should not be circumvented by
allowing parties to invoke writ jurisdiction. However, in the instant
case what escaped from the notice of the High Court was as to whether
the Rent Controller after declining leave to the tenant to contest the
ejectment application could direct the land-lord to adduce evidence
and allow the tenant to cross examine the land-lord specially when the
provision of sub-Section 6 of Section 22 of the Act, 2009 specifically
provide that in case where the leave to contest is refused or the
respondent has failed to file application for leave to contest within the
stipulated time, the rent Tribunal shall pass the final order. This being
a mandatory provision with the consequences spelled leaves no option
for the Rent Controller but to pass final order. However, it is to be
noted that the language employed in Section 22(6) by using the words
inal order" instead of "ejectment order", leaves room for the Rent
Controller to apply his judicial mind before passing a final order as
CPs 805-L of 2019 etc 
4
required under the circumstances of each case may it be ejectment of
a tenant or otherwise.
7. It appears that the Rent Controller being oblivious of such
command proceeded with the matter as if exercising ordinary civil
jurisdiction ordained under the Code of Civil Procedure where even
after debarring the defendant to file written statement by declaring him
-/ ex parte, the plaintiff can be asked to adduce evidence and the
defendant can be provided with opportunity to cross examine. It is to
be noted that the powers conferred on the Rent Controller under sub-
Section 6 of Section 22 of the Act, 2009 are more akin to the
provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 2 CPC which provide that on default
of defendant in obtaining leave to defend, the plaintiff shall be entitled
to a decree. Likewise, in cases where a tenant is declined leave to
contest, the Rent Controller is left with no option but to pass a final
order. 
lk
ccte
8. 
In the circumstances, These petitions / converted into appeal
4-1 1 '
 ale allowed. The Rent Controller is directed to decide the ejectment
petitions through a final order in terms of the provisions of Section
22(6) of the Act, 2009.
Islamabad
09.03.2021
A. Rehman
Nit Approved For Reporting
Judge
d1'ge
