2026 MLD 27 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Full text

Molvi Najeebullah VS Khan Gul S.13---Balochistan Waqf Properties Act (III of 2020), S.7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---eviction application---Summary rejection of plaint by Rent Controller---Validity---Mixed questions of law and facts---Recording of evidence necessary---Applicability of provisions of C.P.C. in rent laws/special laws---Scope---Control of mosque by Auqaf department---Notification and registration, absence of---Effect---In absence of notification and registration with Auqaf department, mosque does not fall exclusively within the control of the Auqaf Department---The appellant acting as Mutawalli/Munazzim-e-Ala of a mosque filed eviction applications under S.13 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the respondents who occupied shops belonging to the mosque as tenants---The eviction was sought on the ground that the mosque, accommodating around 200 worshippers, required reconstruction and expansion due to congestion, as worshippers were forced to pray outside---The tenants had also defaulted in paying monthly rent---The Trial court/Rent Controller dismissed the applications under O.VII R.11, C.P.C., holding the same not maintainable---The appellant challenged that dismissal through several connected appeals---Question for determination was as to "Whether the Rent Controller erred in law by dismissing the appellant's eviction applications under O.VII R.11, C.P.C., despite such provisions of the C.P.C. not being strictly applicable to proceedings governed by the special law of rent restriction, and whether the mosque property in question, not notified by the Auqaf Department, fell within the purview of rent laws permitting eviction of tenants for reconstruction and expansion purposes"?---Held: No notification establishing that the mosque had been notified or assumed by the religious affairs department under the provisions of S.7 of the Balochistan Waqf Properties Act, 2020 and duly registered with Auqaf department had been produced, therefore, the contention that mosque fell exclusively within the control of the Auqaf department was without legal foundation---As far as applicability of the provision of C.P.C. was concerned, though provisions of C.P.C. were not applicable in their strict sense to proceedings before a Rent Controller, nevertheless, equitable principles embodied therein could be resorted for a just and proper adjudication---Even then, dismissal of an eviction application under O.VII, R.11 of C.P.C., without affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, was not justified---Rent Controller was bound to adopt a legal procedure that ensured fair trial and complete adjudication of the dispute---Question of locus standi and authorization of the appellant to institute the proceedings being a Muntazim-e-Ala of the registered society was essentially a mixed question of law and fact which ought to have been decided after framing of issues and recording of evidence rather than through summary rejection---Impugned orders passed by trial court/ Rent Controller was set aside and matter were remanded with direction to proceed with the matters by framing of issues with regard to properties being waqf and duly notified cum registered with the Auqaf department and provide full and fair opportunity to parties to lead evidence---Appeals were partly allowed, in circumstances.