P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

Khairat Ali for Appellant. Zafar Ullah Khan for Respondent. Dates of hearing : 20th June and 3rd August 1960. Bakhshi Mahmud Ali appellant made an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, for the eviction of Aurangzeb respondent from the appellant's house which the respondent occupied as a tenant. On the 8th of January 1958 the Rent Controller made an order under section 13, subsection (6) of the aforesaid Act that the respondent should deposit Rs. 420 as arrears of rent by the 24th of March 1958 and future monthly rent by the 5th of every month. However, the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, expired) on the 15th of January 1958. The respondent neither deposited Rs. 420 towards the arrears of rent, nor did he make any deposit of the future monthly rent, as required by the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller.

2. After the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordin ance (VI of 1959) was promulgated on the 23rd of February 1959, Mahmud Ali appellant made an application under section 22 of this Ordinance, praying for his previous application being restored to the file for the passing of the proper orders. The appellant's contention before the Rent Controller was that since the respondent had failed to deposit Rs. 420 by way of arrears of rent by the 24th of March, 1958 and the monthly rent by the 5th of every month in accordance with the order of the Rent Controller, dated the 8th of January 1958, the respondent merited eviction in view of the section 21, subsection (2) (a), which lays down that an order made by the Rent Controller in any proceedings under the Act of 1957 shall be deemed to have effect as an order under this Ordinance. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that since the respondent failed to deposit any rent before the 5th of every month in accordance with the order passed by the Rent Controller on the 8th of January 1958, he merited ejectment from the premises that he was occupying as a tenant. He, therefore, ordered his eviction and the striking off the defence of the respondent and further directed that the landlord be put in possession of the premises without any further proceedings. The respondent appealed against this order to the District Judge, Lahore.

3. The learned District Judge was of the view that a reasonable interpretation of sections 21 and 22 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, would be that once the proceedings were revived under the aforesaid Ordinance, the parties concerned must be given adequate time and opportunity for compliance with the previous orders which are deemed to have been passed under the present Ordinance. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was no justification for striking off the defence of Aurangzeb under section 13 (6) of the Ordin ance. The learned District Judge further observed as follows: "The present Rent Controller should give him (respondent) an opportunity so as to enable him to physically comply with the previous order and if there is still default, action can then proceed under section 13 (6) of the present Ordinance." In view of the above, the learned District Judge accepted the appeal of the respondent and, setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, remanded the proceedings for disposal according to law, as indicated above.

4. Mahmud Ali applicant has preferred this appeal against the aforesaid order dated the 9th of July 1959, of the learned District Judge.

5. I think the appeal has to be accepted and the order of the learned Rent Controller restored. It would appear from the order of the learned District Judge that in making his order he was mainly influenced by the consideration that it was physically impossible for the respondent to comply with the order of the Rent Controller to deposit the arrears of rent by the 24th of March 1958, after the expiry of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, as the Rent Controller with whom the deposit had to be made had ceased to exist with the expiry of the Act. I do not think that it was not possible for the respon dent to comply with the order dated the 8th of January 1958 of the Rent Controller. Section 17 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957 (which has been re‑enacted verbatim as section 17 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959), reads as follows :‑

"Every order made under section 10 or section 13 and every order passed on appeal under section 15 shall be executed by a Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area as if it were a decree of that Court." In the light of the aforesaid provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, the order regarding the deposit of arrears of rent and payment of monthly rent has to be regarded as a decree for which the executing Court would be a Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area. The words "every order" in section 17 of the Act make it clear that even an interlocutory order, like the order dated the 8th of January 1958, has to be treated as a decree executable by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The section further lays down that the Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area would execute such an order as if it were a decree passed by that Court itself. Under Order XXI, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, all money payable under a decree shall be paid into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree. It is clear, therefore, that after the order was passed by the Rent Controller on the 8th of January 1958 it became a decree for which the executing Court was a Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area. Therefore, even though the Rent Controller ceased to exist as such, the deposit of the arrears of rent, as also the monthly rent, could very well be made in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge. It is significant that in the order dated the 8th of January 1958 of the Rent Controller there is no specific direction to the effect that the amount of the arrears of rent and the monthly rent had to be deposited with the Rent Controller. It is, therefore, wrong to suppose that it was physically impossible for the respondent to comply with the order dated the 8th of January 1958 of the Rent Controller. It is not the case of the respondent that he made any efforts to deposit the amount as directed by the order dated the 8th of January 1958 and that the Senior Civil Judge (who had also been the Rent Controller) refused to accept the deposit. Indeed, it should seem that the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, as also the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restric tion Ordinance, 1959, contemplate that the payments of rent ordered under subsection (6) of section 13 have to be made to the Civil Court only (unless, of course, otherwise specifically, directed by the Rent Controller); for there is no provision in either of these enactments authorising the Rent Controller to receive such payments or deposits. The impression that such deposits are received by the Rent Controller is a mere illusion sustained by the circumstance that all Rent Controllers are persons who are also presiding officers of Civil Courts, which Civil Courts, generally speaking, are of competent jurisdiction to execute the orders of Rent Controllers as decrees.

6. Sardar Zafrullah Khan, counsel for the respondent, cited Siraj Din v. Atta Muhammad (P L D 1955 Lah. 563), in support of his contention that with expiry of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Act, 1957, section 17 of the Act also expired and, therefore, no deposit of rent could be made with any Civil Court. I am afraid the ruling quoted by the learned counsel for the respondent has no applica tion to the present case. In the aforesaid judgment Mr. Justice Kaikaus was taking into consideration a case where an order of ejectment was sought to be put into execution when one Rent Restriction Act had expired but no other legislation on the subject had yet come into existence. But in the present case, although the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957 expired in" January 1958, yet when the appellant made his application for restoration of proceedings for the eviction of the respondent, the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance had already been brought into force with effect from the date of the expiry of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act. And this, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 not only seeks to continue and take under its protection the proceedings taken and orders made under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, but also contains a provision identical with section 17 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957. Besides, it seems to me that section 17 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957 was aimed at giving the order of the Rent Controller under section 13 the position and status of a decree of a Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area, that is to say, such an order had to be treated as a decree of the Civil Court. Once the order regarding the deposit of arrears and rent made by the Rent Controller had already become a decree of a Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area, the Civil Court would be competent to execute it like any other decree passed by itself, After the proceedings had been revived, under section 22 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction, Ordinance, all that the Rent Controller had to see was whether or not the deposit had been made with the Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area in accordance with the order dated the 8th of January 1958 and on finding that the order had not been complied with, be was required under subsection (6) of section 13 to strike off the defence of the respondent and order that the appellant be put into possession of the property in dispute.

7. It is significant that it is not only under section 21, subsec tion (2) of the Ordinance that the order of a Rent Controller made under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957 was to be deemed to have effect as an order made under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, but also under section 1, subsection (4) the provisions of the Ordinance other than subsection (5) of section 13 and section 19 were to be, deemed to have taken effect on and from the date of expiry of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, which means that for all practical purposes, the provisions, relevant to the present case of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act Z did not expire on the 15th of January 1958. But even if it be assumed that during the interregnum between the expiry of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1957 and the promulgation of the Ordinance VI of 1959, section 11 of the Act of 1957 expired and consequently a Civil Court could not execute any order of a Rent Controller made under section 13 it cannot be said that the order dated the 8th of January 1959 of the Rent Controller could not be complied with as soon as the Ordinance was promulgated. The disability, if there was any, regarding the making of deposit disappeared with the coming into opera tion of the Ordinance.

8. In view of the above, I am of opinion that the order of the Rent Controller regarding the eviction of the respondent, the striking off of his defence, and the petitioner‑appellant being put in possession of the premises was quite sound. I, therefore, accept this appeal and, setting aside the order of the learned District Judge, Lahore, restore and affirm the order of the learned Rent Controller. In the circumstances of the case, however, I make no order as to costs. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.