P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

S. 13‑Tenant can be ejected only by order of Rent Controller even in presence of decree for ejectment. The effect of the provision in the West Pakistan Rent Restric tion Act barring the ejectment of a tenant even in the presence of a decree is that even in suits which were pending at the date when the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act came into force a decree for ejectment cannot be passed, although ordinarily an Act does not affect pending proceedings. Sh. Hyder Bux for Appellant. S. Nasiruddin for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th December 1958. This judgment will dispose of four connected revision petitions Nos. 173/1957, 174/1957, 175/1957 and 176/1957, which are directed against the decrees of the Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Jumo Khan, who is the petitioner in these four revision petitions, had filed four suits against his tenants for rent and ejectment. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, granted decrees for rent but refused the prayer for ejectment of the tenants on the sole ground that there was scarcity of accommodation in Hyderabad. In these revision petitions the petitioner prays that a decree for ejectment also be granted in each of the four suits. It is obvious that the basis on which the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court has proceeded is wrong. There is no jurisdiction in the Court to refuse the prayer of the landlord for ejectment in a case where the tenancy is terminated. That is the legal right of the landlord, and Courts have no discretion to ref use legal reliefs. It is only in a case where a relief is equitable that there is jurisdiction in the Court to grant it or withhold it. Where a landlord sues the tenant on the ground of forfeiture of A tenancy, the Court has power to relieve the tenant of the effect of the non‑compliance with a condition of the tenancy. The effect would be that the tenancy would not stand determined at all. But once the tenancy is determined, the position of the tenant becomes that of a trespasser, and the Court has only as much jurisdiction to refuse the ejectment of such a person as it has to refuse to pass a money decree against a debtor whose liability is established. If the scarcity of accommodation were the only. plea on behalf of the respondents, these revision petitions would have succeeded, but there is another reason why the suit for ejectment should fail, although the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court was not aware of the legal position and although no plea to this effect had been taken before him. On the date on which suits the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act had come into force and in accordance with that Act a tenant was not liable at all to ejectment except by order of the Rent Controller. Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act provides that a tenant is not to be ejected, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of that Act. The procedure that is provided in that Act is that an application for ejectment is to be filed before the Rent Controller and it is only the Rent Controller who can order an ejectment. These suits had been filed before the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act came into force, but that does not affect the question before me. As, even in the presence of a decree for ejectment it is only by an order of the Rent Controller that a tenant can be ejected, the grant of such a decree can be of no use and the Court will not pass a decree which cannot be of any benefit to the plaintiff. The effect of the provision in the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ac barring the ejectment of a tenant even in the presence of a decree is that even in suits which were pending at the date when the; West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act came into force a decree for ejectment cannot be passed, although ordinarily an Act does not affect pending proceedings. As a result, all the three revision petitions are dismissed but without any order as to costs. K.B.A. Petitions dismissed.