Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 23 of 1981, decided on 14th March, 1982.

-- O. XXI, r. 15 read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959),. S. 22-O. XXI, r. 15, C.P. C. not applicable to proceedings before Rent Controller under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959-Entertainment of execution applica tion by Rent controller-Rent Controller as appellate Authority under S. 22 has discretion to determine manner in which order passed by him to be executed-Rent Controller can entertain execution appli cation by one of joint owners of property in whose favour joint order of ejectment passed.

Faizanul Haque for Appellant. Mustafa Lakhani for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th March, 1982.

Today application for restoration of appeal and stay application are fixed for hearing. The learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection to the restoration of appeal if it is-heard today as the appeal was ordered to be disposed of within 6 months on 22nd February, 1981. Mr. Faizanul Haque, the learned counsel for the appellant states that he is willing to argue the main appeal if it is restored. . I accordingly restore the appeal by consent.

Mr. Faizanul Haque, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised two fold contentions before me. It is firstly contended that the execution application has not been signed by all the persons in whose favour the order was passed by the Rent Controller and therefore execution application is, incompetent in law. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the VIth Senior Civil Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge was not com petent to entertain and dispose of the execution application as after pro mulgation of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 21st of November, 1979 only the Rent Controller could entertain an execution application.

In so far the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that where a joint decree is passed in favour of several decree holders, under Order XXI, rule 15, C.P.C. anyone of the joint decree-holders could apply for execution of the same for the benefit of ail Although Order XXI, rule 15, C. P. C. in its terms does not apply to the proceeding before the Rent Controller under the Ordinance but in view of the fact that the Controller as the Appellate Authority under section 22 of the Ordinance has been given the discussion to determine the manner in which the orders passed by them are to be executed 1 see no objection to the entertainment of the execution application by the Rent Controller by one of the joint owners of the property in whose favour a joint order of ejectment was pass ed in the case specially whets there was neither any contrary direction of the Controller or the appellate authority in that behalf. None of the joint owners/landlords of the Premises raised any objection before the Controller regarding filing of execution application by out of them. In reply to the second objection of Mr. Faizanul Haque Mr. Mustafa Lakhani contends by notification dated 21^st December 1964 all the first class civil judges west Pakistan were appointed as rent controller to exercise power in their respective jurisdiction under west Pakistan urban rent restriction ordinance 1959 in view of the definition of controller given in section 2(b) of the sind rented premises ordinance 1979 it is not disputed before me that the VIth senior civil judge was exercising the powers of a controller under the ordinance of 1959 when sind rented premises ordinance 1979 was promulgated and therefore I am in no doubt that Vith senior civil judge was also a rent controller under ordinance of 1979 in the execution application the respondent had mentioned the Court to which execution was filed as follows :-

"In the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi."

In view of the fact that the respondent filed his application for execution before the Court of Controller, mere fact that in the order passed by that Court it is mentioned as the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge does not mean that the order was not passed by that Court as a Controller more so when it is an admitted position that the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge is a Controller under Ordinance of 1979. The objection raised by the learn ed Counsel is only technical in nature and cannot be upheld. No argu ments were advanced on merit and in view of the above discussion I dismiss this appeal with costs.

M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.