Find a Lawyer

---S. 15(7)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115--Ejectment order against petitioner attaining finality--Suit by petitioner for declaration that ejectment order was nullity, whether competent--Where ejectment order passed by Rent Controller against petitioner, had attained finality, suit filed by such petitioner for a declaration that ejectment order was nullity, held, would not be competent--Ejectment order having attained finality, even admission in evidence by respondent that petitioner was not his tenant, would not entitle petitioner to invoke revisional jurisdiction of High Court--Only Rent Controller or Appellate Court could direct that matter to referred to civil Court to determine rights of parties but once their orders had attained finality, no suit against such orders of ejectment could be filed--Revision against dismissal of suit dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Farkhand Ali for Petitioner. Abdul Fattah Malik for Respondents.

This is a civil revision challenging the judgment of the two Courts below. The applicant is the real son of the respondent No.l. The case of the applicant in respect of the house in question has been that by oral gift made on 20-5-1972 the house was orally gifted by respondent No.l to the applicant but then later on he changed his mind for ulterior motive and took up the position that the gift had never been made. Thereafter the respondent filed an ejectment application against the appellant before the Rent Controller. In the rent proceedings a stand was taken by the appellant that he was the owner and not the tenant of the respondent but rent accounts were filed by the parties including the appellant and rent order was passed. Admittedly rent was not deposited as directed by the tentative rent order of the Rent Controller and as such his defence was struck off under section 13(6) of the 1959 Rent Ordinance and he was ordered to be ejected from the house in question. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal before the District Court but the appeal was dismissed. No further proceedings were taken under the Rent Ordinance for setting aside the two orders of the Rent Controller and the first appellate Authority. The ejectment order, accordingly, attained finality. Thereafter the appellant filed a civil suit for declaration that the ejectment order had been obtained by fraud and also sought a permanent injunction. The suit was, however, dismissed by judgment dated 9-3-1983 of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Sukkur on merits. The applicant filed appeal but the appeal also met the same fate by judgment dated 25-8-1986 of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Sukkur. In these circumstances the applicant has approached this Court under section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in revision. I have heard Mr. Farkhand Ali learned counsel for the applicant.

It was pointed out to the learned counsel that the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller having attained finality and the applicant having not filed any further proceedings after this appeal had been dismissed under the Rent Ordinance, the suit filed by the A applicant for a declaration that the ejectment order was a nullity, was not competent. According to learned counsel for the applicant there is an admission in the evidence of the respondent/ father before the learned Civil Judge that the applicant was not a tenant of the respondent and as such the civil suit is competent. I do not agree. The remedy was open to the applicant to take the matter further under the Rent Ordinance after his first appeal against the ejectment order had been dismissed. This not having been done the ejectment order attained finality and the ejectment order cannot be set aside by filing a civil suit. If at all the stand of the applicant before the Rent Controller was that he was not a tenant, and the matter was agitated before the Rent Controller, and the applicant was aggrieved by the order of ejectment on the ground that the Rent Controller had taken an incorrect decision, his remedy lay in filing of appeal which he did and if that appeal was dismissed by the first appellate authority under the provisions of 1959 Ordinance, he should have filed the second appeal before the High Court. Only the authorities under the Rent Ordinance could have directed if a case was made out that the matter should be referred to the civil Court but once the orders attained finality, it is not open to a party to file a civil suit to get the orders of ejectment under the Rent Ordinance set aside.