1999 PLP 485 (YLR)

Respondent No. 3 filed, on 17‑1‑1993, before the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, an application against the petitioner for his ejectment from the suit property. The grounds for ejectment were the default, bona fide requirement and nuisance. The petitioner failed his written statement on 20‑3‑1993. The learned Rent Controller on 2‑5‑1993 fixed the tentative rent at the rate of Rs.1625 per month payable from January, 1992. The petitioner failed to comply with the order, dated 2-5‑1993. Consequently, by order, dated 6‑7‑1993, the defence of the petitioner was struck off under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioner was directed to vacate the suit property and to make the payment of Rs.29,250 till June, 1993. The petitioner delivered to respondent No.3 the possession of property.

2. The respondent No.3 filed an execution application on 27‑2‑1994 before the learned Rent Controller for the recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.42,250 with a further prayer for possession. The objection petition, dated 17‑3‑1994 of the petitioner against the execution proceedings was dismissed by order, dated 28‑4‑1994 passed by the learned Rent Controller/Executing Court. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed vide impugned order, dated 23‑6‑1994 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a miscalculation of the amount of rent as tentatively determined by order, dated 2‑5‑1993 of the learned Rent Controller. It was stated that at the most the correct collection of the rent would be Rs.1,562 only and not Rs.1,625 per month even if the contentions of respondent No.3 were accepted. It was further argued that the tentative order, dated 2‑5‑1993 could not be given finality so as to be made basis for the execution proceedings. It was contended that order, dated 28‑4‑1994 and 23‑6‑1994 respectively passed by the learned Rent Controller/Executing Court and the learned Additional District Judge were against facts and law.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.3 contended that the law did not contemplate holding of more than one trial of the suit in the matter of ejectment and payment of arrears of rent. The tentative order, dated 2‑5‑1993 had become a part of and stood emerged in the final order, dated 6‑7‑1993 passed. by the learned Rent Controller whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off and he was directed to make the payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,625 per month. It was further argued that the objection petition and the appeal of the petitioner had been rightly dismissed by the Courts below.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The order, dated 6‑7‑1993 passed by the learned Rent Controller directing the petitioner to make the payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,625 per month attained finality in the eye of law. The same had not been called in question by the petitioner in any further proceedings. The petitioner had delivered the possession of the suit property to the respondent No.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or other legal infirmity in the impugned orders, dated 28‑4‑1994 and 23‑6‑1994 respectively passed by the learned Executing Court and learned Additional District Judge to which no exception could be taken.

6. For the foregoing reasons. I do not' find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. H.B.T./R‑97/L Petition dismissed.