Find a Lawyer

Civil Revisions Nos. 816, 839, 840 and 841 of 1982, decided on 15th May, 1983.

---‑S. 15‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 47 & 151‑Ejectment orders‑Execution‑Rent Controller a tribunal and not a Court Petitions under S. 47 or for that matter under S. 151, Civil Procedure Code misconceived and Rent Controller while executing ejectment orders bas no such jurisdiction‑Such orders passed by Rent Con troller without jurisdiction and proceedings before Appellate Court and orders passed by such Court also suffer with same illegality.

‑‑ S. 15‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 47 & 151 Ejectment orders, execution of‑Right to hear objection under S. 47 against execution of decree not a procedural matter and not conferred on Rent Controller under any statute‑Such power, held, cannot be exercised by Rent Controller as a procedural power‑Contention that Rent Controller has to execute ejectment order as a decree of civil Court and could follow procedure laid down by C. P. C. and hear objection petition, repelled.

‑‑ Ss. 115 & 104‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 15‑Revision petition‑Maintainability‑Ejectment orders, execution of‑Objection petitions heard by Civil Judge as an executing Court and not in exercise of powers vested in him as Rent Controller and appeal thereon disposed of by Additional District Judge, under S. 104, C. P. C‑Executing Civil Judge, as well as Additional District Judge exercised jurisdiction not vested in them by law, case, held, fell under mischief of S. 115, C.P.C. and revision petition maintainable in circumstances.

Malik Muhammad Nawaz with M. Iqbal for Petitioners.

Qazi Zahid Hasan for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 15th May, 1983.

This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 816, 839, 840 and 841, all of 1982, as common questions of law and facts have been raised therein. It shall however, remain on the file of C. R. No. 816/82.

2. The facts are : that the petitioner's predecessor‑in‑interest brought separate ejectment petitions against the respondents for their eviction from the premises in their respective possession. The learned Rent Con troller, on 4th June, 1968 ordered their eviction. The appeals filed by them, were dismissed by the appellate authority on 21st January, 1969. The respondents then went in second appeals but their S. A. Os. were dismissed by the High Court by its orders dated 11th June, 1975. Some further litigations between the parties followed this wake, before the civil Court as well as the Settlement authorities.

On‑18th September, 1980 the petitioners applied to the learned Rent Controller for execution of the ejectment orders, in each case, which according to them were the second execution applications. . The respon dents instituted objections under section 47 read with section 151, C. P. C. These were heard by a learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Lahore, who turned down the same by his orders dated 3rd March, 1982. The respondents then preferred the appeals. These were accepted by the learned Additional District Judge by means of his four separate, but identical, orders dated 24th April, 1982. He remanded the cases to the learned executing Court with the direction to bear the objection peti tions afresh. The validity of these orders have been called in question by the petitioners under section 115, C. P. C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. I feel, that for the reasons which will hereinafter follow, the objection‑petitions were not competent. The orders passed under sections 10, 13, 13‑B, and 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance are executable under section 17 thereof. This section has been amended by section 6 of the Punjab Ordinance IX of 1979, enforced with effect from 31st July, 1979. Before the amendment, the ejectment orders were executed by the civil Court having jurisdiction in the area. As a result of this amendment, forum empowered to execute the ejectment orders, has been changed and the Civil Court' substituted by Rent Controller. Under section 47, C. P. C all questions relating to the execution, dis charge and satisfaction of the decree are determined by the Court execut ing the decree. It is now well‑settled that the Rent Controller is a Tribunal and not a Court. The petitions under section 47, C. P. C. or for that matter under section 151, C. P. C. were misconceived. The Legislature in its wisdom by enacting the Ordinance IX of 1979 has abolished the Civil Court's forum competent to hear objections under section 47, C. P. C. The Rent Controller while executing the ejectment orders had no jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's objections under sections 47 and 151, C. P. C. As the orders passed by him were without jurisdiction, the proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge and the orders passed by him in his behalf, also suffer from the same illegality.

4. The learned counsel 'for the respondents, however, submitted that as the Rent Controller had to execute the ejectment order as a decree of the civil Court, he could follow the procedure laid down in the Civil procedure Code and hear the objection petitions.

5. There is no merit in this argument. The right to hear objection petition, under section 47, C. P. C. against the execution of a decree, is not a procedural matter and must be conferred by Statute but there is no such Statute. In law such a power cannot be exercised by the Rent Controller as a procedural measure.

6. The learned counsel then came forthwith with another submission, He argued, if the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge, acted without jurisdiction the petitioner's remedy, if any, lays in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court and the revision petitions under section 115, C. P. C. are not competent.

7. This argument is also devoid of any force. The respondent's objection petitions were heard by the learned Civil Judge as an executing Court and not in exercise of the powers vesting in him as Rent Controller. Similarly the appeals were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge purportedly under section 104, C. P. C. If the orders passed on the respondent's objection petitions were treated having been made by the C Rent Controller, these could not have been subjected to appeals under section 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. As the executing Court as well as the Additional District Judge exercised jurisdiction not vesting in them in law, the case falls within the mischief of section 115, C. P. C. There is thus no doubt about the maintainability of the revision petitions.

8. For the foregoing reasons these revision petitions are accepted and the impugned orders set aside, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

M.Y.H. Petitions accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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