1986 PLP 541 (MLD)

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being applicable to execution of order of Rent Controller, revisional jurisdiction of High Court, held, would not be available for setting aside order passed by Rent Controller relating to execution of ejectment orders. Iqbal Ahmad for Petitioners. Ch. Allah Bakhsh respondent No.1 herein is admittedly the transferee and owner of shop bearing No. C/105, situate in Moti Bazar, Rawalpindi. He filed an eviction application before a learned Rent Controller, seeking eviction of Rahim Bakhsh, his tenant; from the said shop. The eviction application was decided in favour' of Ch. Allah Bakhsh. The tenant Rahim Bakhsh filed an appeal challenging the order of eviction passed against him but ultimately before the appellate authority a compromise was reached between the two and as per terms of the compromise the appeal was withdrawn and Rahim Bakhsh promised to hand over possession of the shop to Ch. Allah Bakhsh on 30‑9‑1984. He has not yet handed over the possession to respondent No.l. The present petitioners in the meantime filed a civil suit before a learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, claiming that alongwith Rahim Bakhsh they were also in possession of the shop in question being successors of one Abdul Aziz, who was an allottee/tenant under the Rehabilitation Department of the shop in question. They, however, maintained that after the transfer of the shop in favour of Ch. Allah Bakhsh respondent No.l, they used to pay rent to him through Rahim Bakhsh who too was in possession of that shop. They thus sought a declaration to the effect that they were in possession of the shop in exercise of their independent rights and the ejectment order obtained by Ch. Allah Bakhsh against Rahim Bakhsh was not binding on them. The learned trial Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground that an independent suit was not competent. The question related to the execution of the order of ejectment and, therefore, the petitioners could agitate about their right through an objection application before the Rent Controller and not by way of independent suit before the civil Court. Their suit was barred under Rule 103 of Order XXI, C.P.C. The order regarding rejection of plain was made by the learned Civil Judge on 3‑10‑1985.

2. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners preferred an appeal before a learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, but their appeal also failed and was dismissed on 21‑12‑1985.

3. The aforementioned orders passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge have been called in question through the present civil revision.

4. It has been urged that the learned Rent Controller was not competent to hear an objection application to be filed, by the petitioners as provisions of C.P.C. did not apply to the proceedings under Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.

5. This plea is absolutely devoid of merit. By virtue of the provisions of section 17 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, every order made under section 10, section 13, section 13‑B and every order passed in appeal under section 15, has to be executed by the Controller as if it were a decree of a civil Court. Prior to the amendment of section 17, ibid orders as aforesaid passed by a Rent Controller or an appellate authority were executable by the civil Court having jurisdiction in the area. Since after the amendment these orders were to be executed by the Controller himself as a decree of a civil Court. Execution of a decree of a civil Court is regulated by the provisions contained in Order XXI, C.P.C. The said provisions shall, therefore, also apply while a Controller executes an order referred to in section 17, as a decree of a civil Court. In this view of the matter, an objection application under Order XXI, Rule 100, C.P.C. is competent before a Controller, while executing an order of eviction as a decree of the civil Court and thus Rule 103 of Order XXI ibid shall also be applicable to such execution which bars the filing of an independent suit.

6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no substance in the present civil revision, which is dismissed in limine. The eviction order passed against Rahim Bakhsh, through whom the petitioners claim to have been paying rent to respondent No.l shall not be executed for a period of three months effective from today. A.A Revision dismissed.