P L D 2001 Karachi 124 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 2nd November, 2000. Through this appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 29-3-1992 passed by learned Ist Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Jacobabad, whereby he dismissed the execution application filed by landlady Mst. Qadiran Begum. The appellant had filed an ejectment application in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Jacobabad bearing Rent Application. No.56 of 1987. The said ejectment was allowed by the Rent Controller on 7-3-1988. The respondent being aggrieved by the ejectment order preferred Ist Rent Appeal before this Court bearing No.27 of'

988. The aforesaid F.R.A. was dismissed by this Court on 14-11-1991. The appellant filed execution application in the Court of learned Rent Controller on 30-1-1992 bearing Execution Application No.1 of 1992. The respondent filed objections to the said execution application, wherein he raised the plea that the appellant had entered into a fresh agreement with him and had received money order for the enhanced rate at Rs.300. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent has not paid a single panny to the appellant/landlady for the last 21 years. It is pleaded that the alleged agreement is a forged one and the same is produced in order to defeat the orders of this Court as well as of the learned Rent Controller. The requirement of section 22 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance had not been complied with and even if, the alleged agreement is assumed to have been executed by the parties, it is invalid as the A same does not satisfy the requirement of explanation to section 22 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. The reference is made to the cases reported in Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Azeem PLD 1994 Kar. 319; Mehmood Elahi Farooqui v. Messrs United Bank Limited PLD 1988 Kar. 133 and Alain Khan v. Muhammad Ramzan 1995 MLD

429. Mr. S. Manzar Alain learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the landlady has entered into an agreement with the tenant and subsequently acted upon the same and received money order. The agreement is valid and legal as the same was accepted by the landlady. The reference is made to a case reported in Muhammad Shafiq and 3 others v. Gulber Khan and another 1984 CLC 2735. The record indicates that the litigation between the parties is continuing for the last 13 years. The landlady had won the cases before the Rent Controller and before this Court. It appears that subsequently the respondent has prepared the document in order to defeat the orders of the Courts including the order of this Court. The requirements of section 221 have not been satisfied. For convenience sake, it would be necessary to reproduce the contents of section 22 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, which reads as under:-- "

22. Execution of orders.--Final order passed under this Ordinance shall be executed by the Controller and all questions arising between the parties and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of order shall be determined by the Controller and not by a separate suit. Explanation.--In the execution proceedings relating to the order of ejectment no payment, compromise or agreement shall be valid unless such payment, compromise or agreement is made before or with the permission of the authority passing the order." The explanation referred above clearly reveals that in the execution proceedings relating to the order of ejectment, no payment, compromise, or agreement shall be acceptable or legal, unless such payment, compromise or agreement is made before the authority passing order or with his permission. The abovementioned requirements are violated which indicate that the same was mala fide and the agreement is made in order to create hurdles for implementing the orders of the Courts. The reference can be had to a case of Mehmood Elahi Farooqui v. Messrs United Bank Limited PLD 1998 Karachi 133, wherein his lordship has observed as under:-- "The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of explanation to section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the execution proceedings relating to the order of ejectment, no payment, compromise or agreement shall be valid unless such payment, compromise or agreement is made before or with the permission of the authority passing the order but in the The Rent Controller has not gone through the relevant section and has passed impugned order in disregard of section 22 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. Such frivolous petitions should not be encouraged and be curtailed at their initial stage. The impugned order is illegal, ill-founded and is not sustainable. The present F.R.A. is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the learned Rent Controller is directed to issue writ of possession directly E against the respondent without issuing any notice to him. The respondent Doctor Jahangir Ahmad is directed to pay Rs. 10,000 (Rs. ten thousand only) to the appellant as costs. H.B.T./Q-7/K Appeal allowed.