2020 YLR 61 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

SAEED MAZHAR ALI VS Mrs. AROOSA MUBASHIR Ss. 6, 17, 24 & 30---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6(e)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 175(3)---eviction of tenant---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Tenant had stopped paying the monthly rent to the landlord claiming that he had entered into agreement to sell regarding demised property with the landlord---Appellant/ tenant challenged the competency of the Additional Cantonment Executive Officer as Rent Controller before High Court claiming that no notification was issued for his appointment as Rent Controller---Validity--- Question of inherent jurisdiction, normally a pure question of law, could be raised at any stage and non-raising thereof before the lowest forum (waiver) would not be sufficient for ousting the jurisdiction of appellate forum from examining the same---Challenge to inherent jurisdiction would never earn status of 'new plea' which normally was not permissible to be taken at later stages---Section 6 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 stipulated that appointment of Rent Controller required only issuance of notification which, however, had not been made subject to 'consultation of Chief Justice' rather the absolute competence had been vested with the Federal Government to appoint a person as Rent Controller or Additional Rent Controller by issuing notification in official gazette---Court could not add or delete anything in or out of a provision---Scope of interpretation was to make a bona fide attempt to unfold ambiguous words or phrases without disturbing the object and intention of the Legislature rather legally every attempt even while interpreting such ambiguous thing, the intention and object of the legislation had to be protected---Section 6 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 itself had given absolute and exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Government to 'appoint' a person as Rent Controller or Additional Rent Controller which had not been limited to any condition including that such person could not be a public servant rather such appointed person had been clothed as public servant under S.30 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963---Issuance of notification by Federal Government thereby declaring any person as Rent Controller or Additional Rent Controller would be sufficient compliance of S. 6 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 and such person would stand designated as such even if same was ex-officio---Legally issued notification would continue holding the field unless otherwise so expressly intended---Notification prima facie was not subject to any time limitation nor there was placed anything on record that said notification was either recalled or cancelled etc.---High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction could declare any law or custom or usage having the force of law as void---High Court observed that proceedings were rightly entertained and decided by the Additional Rent Controller as subject matter undisputedly fell within the area of the Cantonment---Appellant, in the present case, admitted his entry into subject property as tenant but later claimed to have purchased the same through an agreement to sell---Appellant admittedly, had stopped paying the monthly rent in wake of his undermined status of purchaser which act alone was sufficient for his eviction---No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller, appeal was dismissed accordingly.