Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SIRAJ DIN VS Respondent: SARDAR BEGUM
1988 M L D 613
1988 M L D 613
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Afzal Lone, J
SIRAJ DIN‑‑Petitioner
Versus
SARDAR BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Revision No. 936 of 1982, decided on 6th February, 1983.
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑-----
‑‑S. 17 [as amended by Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (IX of 1979)]‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, R. 97‑‑Order of ejectment‑‑Execution‑‑Objection petition‑‑While executing ejectment order under S. 17, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, Rent Controller, acted as a special Tribunal and not a Civil Court‑‑Objection petition before Rent Controller, held, incompetent.
M. Aslam Riaz for Petitioner.
M. Nawaz Kasuri for Respondent No. 1.
ORDER The facts in brief are that Mst. Sardar Begum, respondent No. 1, brought an ejectment petition against Allah Rakha and Allah Ditta, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, for their eviction from a room and a varanda, forming part of house No. P‑142‑D, Street No. 5, Munshi Mohallah, Faisalabad. The landlady also instituted another petition for eviction of the present petitioner from five rooms of the same house. This petiition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, and the petitioner's appeal dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. The matter has now been lifted before this Court in W.P. No. 2684/82.
2. So far as Allah Rakha, and Allah Ditta are concerned, they entered into a compromise with the landlady, as a result whereof they agreed to surrender the possession by 2‑3‑1982. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller in this behalf is dated 2‑9‑1981. It appears that instead of handing over the possession of the demised premises to the landlady, they inducted the petitioner therein.
3. After having so acquired the possession, he riled a suit challenging the validity of Rent Controller's order dated 2‑9‑1981 on the ground that in the said premises, he held joint tenancy with Allah Rakha and Allah Ditta respondents and therefore, without his being impleaded as party the ejectment petition was incompetent. The matter was also considered by me in C.R. No. 638/82 brought by the petitioner against an interlocutory order which was dismissed on 9‑5‑1982. It is conceded at the bar that the civil suit out of which this revision arose stood dismissed on 13‑6‑1982.
4. The instant revision petition has arisen out of an objection petition dated 9‑3‑1982 brought by the petitioner before the Tribunal seized of the execution of the ejectment order. It was dismissed on 26‑5‑1982. The petitioner challenged the dismissal through an appeal which also failed. The order dated 17‑6‑1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, in this behalf, has been assailed by him, through this revision.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.
It is to be seen that section 17 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance was I amended by the Punjab Ordinance No. IX of 1979. Before this amendment the orders passed by a Rent Controller under sections 10, 13, 13‑B, and 15 were executed by a Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area as if it were a decree o: that Court. As a result of this amendment, such orders are now executed by the Rent Controller. According to the learned counsel the objection‑petition was filed under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 100, C.P.C. which can only be moved before a Civil Court. Obviously while executing an ejectment order under section 17 as amended, the learned Rent Controller, acted as a special Tribunal and not a Civil Court. The objection petition was thus incompetent. When faced with this situation, the learned counsel did not have much to urge in support of this revision, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
M.Y.H./107/L
Revision dismissed.