1972 PLP 228 (SCMR)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner was the respondent's tenant in the disputed premises since 1966, wherein he was carrying on automobile business. The respondent filed an application against the petitioner under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, on the ground that he needed the premises for his personal use in order to start business therein along with his son. A compromise was effected between the parties, by which the petitioner was allowed to continue in occupation of the premises for two more years on the enhanced rent of Rs.340 per mensem, and an order was passed to that effect by the Rent Controller on the 26th of January 1970, direct ing that the premises shall be vacated by the petitioner on the 26th of January 1972. The petitioner did not vacate the premises on that date, and when the respondent sought to execute the order of the Rent Controller, he filed an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, objecting to the execution, on the ground that the respondent had agreed to renew his tenancy for a further period of eleven months from the 25th of January 1972 on an enhanced rent of Rs. 440 per mensem. For this allegation, he relied on a Rent Note dated the 25th of January 1972, which, however, did not bear the signature of the respondent. Simultaneously, he asked for injunction to restrain the respondent from executing the ejectment order, which has been dismissed by the Courts below, including the High Court, to which the matter was taken by way of revision. It seems to us that after the petitioner had filed his applica tion under section 47, C. P. C., objecting to his eviction on the ground, as stated in his application, on the basis of novation of tenancy, which needed an inquiry and evidence, his ejectment could not have been ordered till the decision of that petition, and the further effort made by him to defeat his ejectment by a temporary injunction was a superfluity. The prayer for a temporary injunc tion was rightly refused, and we see no ground to interfere in the discretionary order made by the Courts below. However, as pointed out above, the application of the petitioner under section 47, C. P. C., which is still sub judice, has to be decided by the executing Court before the actual ejectment of the petitioner is ordered, that is to say, by actual execution of the ejectment order made by the Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the High Court has already discounted the Rent Note which is the main basis of the petitioner's objection petition under section 47, C. P. C. We would like to observe that that application has to be decided on its own merits and on evidence. Any observation that had been made in the order of the High Court bearing on the point, will not prejudice the decision of that petition. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. Leave refused.