Fazal Raheem vs Rent Controller (East), Islamabad Ss — 2025 YLR 2784 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Fazal Raheem VS Rent Controller (East), Islamabad Ss.17(8) & 21(1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition by tenant against interim order of rent controller directing to deposit rent---Maintainability---Appeal against interlocutory orders---Legislative bar---Effect---Constitutional petition not maintainable when remedy of appeal against interlocutory orders is prohibited by law---Non-interference by High Court against interlocutory order of rent controller---'Raison d'etat'---Petitioner/tenant still retains a right to contest the ejectment petition on all available grounds and to challenge the final order through proper legal channel---Brief facts were that petitioner (tenant) entered into a rent agreement with respondent No.1(landlord)---Later the landlord initiated ejectment proceedings before the rent controller on grounds of default in rent, personal need, and breach of lease, leading to an interim order being passed by the rent controller directing the petitioner (tenant) to deposit Rs.436,000 for May - June 2025 and future rent at Rs.218,000 per month---Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition claiming dispossession, unlawful interference, and arbitrary interim directions prejudicing his tenancy rights---Principle question requiring determination by the High Court was as to "whether the impugned interim order passed by the rent controller under S.17(8) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) was amenable to interference in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution" ?---Held: Rent controller in issuing the impugned direction to deposit rent acted strictly in accordance with S.17(8) of the Ordinance 2001---The impugned order did not conclusively determine any rights of the parties, nor did it dispose of the ejectment petition, rather it merely ensured compliance with statutory requirement during pendency---Therefore, by its nature, the order was interlocutory and procedural---Further, S.21(1) of the Ordinance provided for a statutory right of appeal only against final orders of the rent controller---Subsection (2) of S.21 of the Ordinance categorically barred appeals against interlocutory orders, therefore, entertaining the constitutional petition would be against the legislative intent---In the present case, the petitioner did not demonstrate that the impugned order suffered from any such jurisdictional defect or patent illegality---Moreover, assertion that the petitioner was illegally dispossessed by installation of an iron gate pertained to a factual dispute that squarely fell within the domain of the rent controller and / or the civil court where the petitioner had already instituted a suit---Interim direction requiring the petitioner (tenant) to deposit rent did not determine the issue of default nor did it conclusively adjudicate any factual or legal rights---Petition still retained the right to contest the ejectment petition on all available grounds, to produce evidence, and to challenge any final adverse order through proper legal channels---Hence, no irreparable injury or denial of due process was evidenced from the record that would have justified invocation of constitutional jurisdiction at the interlocutory stage---In light of a clear statutory bar under S.21 of the Ordinance 2001 and the judicial principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding non-interference with interlocutory orders of statutory tribunals, present constitutional petition was not maintainable, as such, same was dismissed.

Fazal Raheem vs Rent Controller (East), Islamabad Ss — 2025 YLR 2784 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR