1984 PLP 2725 (CLC)

‑‑‑S.22‑‑Ejectment order against a registered firm‑‑Application for execution‑‑Notice sent to one of partners of unregistered firm who was contesting ejectment proceedings all along on behalf of firm‑‑Rent Control ler's issuing writ of possession, justified in circumstances‑‑Rent Control ler could not entertain objections in execution proceedings and adjudicate upon status of tenant‑‑Partnership Act (IX of 1932), Ss. 18 b

25. Bambino Ltd. v. Messrs Selmor International Ltd., and others P L D 1983 S C 155 and Seth Qamar Din v. Mcssrs Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 1984 Lah. 795 ref. This is an appeal under section 21 (1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance‑1979, against the order, dated 9th January,1984, passed by the Xth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi, in the Execution Application No.47 of 1983.

2. The brief facts of the case that respondent filed ejectment application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance,1959, against the appellant and 4 others. The Rent Controller vide his order dated 16th March, 1982 ordered ejectment from the premises. The said order was challenged in 1st Rent Appeal No.500/82, before this Court and finally it was dismissed on 21st August,1983.

3. That after the dismissal of the appeal the respondent filed Execution Application. The Rent Controller issued notices of the Execution Applica tion. The notice was served on appellant Mst. Farkhunda. The Rent Controller ordered that writ of possession be issued. Against this order appellant has come in appeal.

4. Mr. A. R. Puri, Advocate for the appellant has contended that service on other partners except Mst. Farkhunda was not made. Therefore the order of the Rent Controller is bad in law and on the point of maintainability of this appeal. He has relied upon the case of Messrs Bambino Ltd. v. Messrs Selmor International Ltd. and others P L D 1983 C1 S‑wherein it as been a tat the order passed y the Rent Controller in Execution Application is appealable before the High Court. He has also relied upon the case of Seth Qamar Din v. Messrs Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. P L D 1984 Lah.795, in which it has been held that summons addressed to the defendant firm through petitioner and while effecting service Process‑Server not notifying service being effected on petitioner as partner or as a person having control or management of partnership business or in both characters the service is not good.

5. On the point of maintainability I agree with Mr.Puri in view of the reported Supreme Court's decision. The appeal is competent. So far second contention is concerned the facts of the cited cases are distinguishable as it was not a rent case. This appeal has been filed by Mst.Farkhunda in which her other partners are not made party. It was argued by Mr .M.A Quadri, for the respondent that the present appellant was all along contesting the proceedings on behalf of unregistered firm. He has also submitted that under section 18 of the Partnership Act service on one partner is service on all. He has further invited the attention to section 25 of the Partnership Act, 1932, wherein it is provided that every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. His contention is that this is an old case and only on technical grounds this appeal has been filed which merits no consideration. The submissions made by Mr. Quadri are relevant because procedure for execution is laid down in section 22 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 which read as under: "An order made by the Controller or the appellate authority shall be executed in such manner as may be determined by the Controller or, as the case may be, the appellate authority." Therefore in view of section 22 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the Rent Controller cannot entertain objections in execution proceedings and adjudicate upon the status of the tenant. In the instant case the Rent Controller's order is speaking one and calls for no interference.

7. In the circumstances when C.P.C. is not applicable in these proceedings and the Rent Controller can get the Execution Order effected in a manner as may be determined by him. This matter came up for me for Katcha Peshi and since short legal point was involved I ordered notice to other party and fixed it for Regular hearing as well. I have heard both the learned counsel on this legal point and come to the conclusion that order of the Rent Controller is proper one. The appeal is dismissed.

8. Operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 12th February,1984, which stands vacated. M.B.A Appeal dismissed.