2017 YLR 1916 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

DAWOOD BALOCH VS MUHAMMAD SALEEM 2010 SCMR 1254, 2012 SCMR 669, 2016 MLD 624, PLD 2014 SC 347, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--17 , Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--24 , Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--5 , Code of Civil Procedure 1908--151 , Ejectment of tenant--Term , Specific Relief Act 1877--12 , Specific Relief Act 1877--56 , Suit for specific performance of contract--Term , Ss. 17, 5 & 24---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 56---Ejectment of tenant---Interim order---Suit for specific performance of contract---Status quo order---Seeking stay of ejectment proceedings on the basis of status quo order passed in the civil suit---Expression "other legal proceedings" contained in S.24 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963---Scope---Tenant moved petition for stay of eviction proceedings on the basis of status quo order passed in the suit filed by him---Rent Controller dismissed the application to stop ejectment proceedings---Validity---Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 had been given over-riding effect upon "anything inconsistent in any other law for the time being in force"---Remedy of an appeal against an order of Rent Controller had been provided but it did not include 'an interim order'---Constitutional petition would be included in term 'legal proceedings'---Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was not applicable in the proceedings under Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963---Proceedings before Rent Controller were an independent proceedings which were controlled by the special law while proceedings before a civil Court were altogether different from the proceedings before Rent Controller---Filing of civil suit before or after proceedings before Rent Controller should not prejudice the competence of such independent legal 'forums'---Rent Controller was not subordinate to civil court---Civil court could not pass an order of staying the judicial proceedings pending before the Rent Controller---Proceedings before Rent Controller could not be said to be 'without due course of law or illegal'---Status quo order passed in the civil suit was not helpful to seek stay of proceedings before the Rent Controller---Tenant had not brought true fact (s) before the civil Court that he was seeking injunction for a purpose to defeat or delay a 'specific lawful proceedings' pending before a 'lawful forum'---Tenant could not use or exploite the injunction order for the purpose which was never brought to light---Injunction obtained against a person could not be used or exploited against an independent person when he was not directly or indirectly involved---If tenant had a case even then he was required to pay entire default amount on account of rent to the landlord or deposit the same before the Rent Controller---Tenant had to assert the question of title in terms of alleged sale agreement for specific performance of contract separately without exerting any pressure upon the Rent Controller---Rent Controller was directed by the High Court to decide the case within two months---Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed.