1973 PLP 434 (SCMR)

(a) he requires it in good faith for his own occupation or for any of his children; (b) he is not occupying another residential building, suitable for his needs at the time, in the same urban area in which such building is situated; and (c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the said urban area; (ii) in the case of a non‑residential building or a scheduled or rented land if (a) he requires it in good faith for his own use; (b) he is not occupying in the same urban area in which such building is situated for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land, as the case may be, suitable for his needs at the time; and (c) he has not vacated such a building or rented land with out sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the said urban area: Provided that where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this subsection before the expiry of such period Provided further that where the landlord has obtained possession of a residential, a scheduled or non‑residential building or rented land under the provision of sub‑paragraph (i) or sub‑paragraph (ii), he shall not be entitled to apply again under the said sub‑paragraphs for the possession of any other building of the same class or rented land unless such residential, scheduled or non‑residential, building or land is no longer suit able for his needs at the time. (b) The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land on such date as may be specified by the Controller and, if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application: Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and may extend such time so as not to exceed four months in the aggregate. (4) Where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building or rented land in pursuance of ‑ an order made under sub‑paragraph (i) or sub‑paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (3), does not himself, or where the building has been got vacated for the occupation of any of his children such child does not occupy it within one month of the date of obtaining possession, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly. (5) Where a landlord has obtained possession of a building in pursuance of an order under clause (vi) of subsection (2) and does not have the building demolished within a period of four months from the date of taking possession of the same or does not construct the new building within a further period of two years after the expiry of the period of four months from the date of taking possession of the same, he shall, unless he satisfied the Court that he was unable to construct the building within the prescribed time for reasons beyond his control be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. (6) In proceedings under this section, on the first date of hearing or as soon as possible after that date and before issues are framed the Collector shall direct the tenant to deposit all the rent due from him and also to deposit regularly till the final deci sion of the case, before the 5th day of each month, the monthly rent due from him. If there is any dispute about the amount of rent due or the rate of rent the Controller shall determine such amount approximately and direct that the same be deposited by the tenant before a date to be fixed for the purpose. If the tenant makes default in the compliance of such an order, then if he is the petitioner his application shall be dismissed summarily and if he is the respondent his defence shall be struck off and the landlord put into possession of the property without taking any further proceedings in the case. (7) Where the Controller is satisfied that any application made by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant is frivolous or vexatious, the Controller may direct that compensation not exceeding ten times the monthly rent be paid by such landlord to the tenant. (8) The rent deposited by the tenant under this section shall, subject to the final determination of rent as payable by the tenant, be paid to the landlord at the conclusion of the proceed ings or on such earlier date as may be specified by the Controller." On the basis of this section it was argued before the executing Court that the decree for ejectment could not be executed and the only remedy of the appellant lay in an application to the Rent Controller under this section. This objection was not given effect to by the executing Court as well as by the District Judge who heard the appeal against the order of the executing Court, but was upheld by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan. The sole question to be decided in the present appeal is whether section 13 is a bar to the ejectment of respondent No. 1 in execution of the decree in favour of the appellant. . The scheme of the Sind Rent Restriction Act, 1952 was that in cases where the tenant committed default in the payment of rent or where he failed to perform other conditions of the tenancy a suit lay without any reference to the Controller under the Act, but if the tenant was ready and willing to pay the rent and was performing the other conditions of tenancy the only method of ejecting him was to obtain from the Controller a certificate in D, respect of one of the matters mentioned in section 9 (2). On the basis of the certificate a suit for ejectment was to be filed in which B, the tenant would be entitled to take all the pleas available in an ordinary suit for ejectment. The certificate was intended only to remove a bar placed on the filing of a suit for ejectment. The scheme of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act,1957; is however different. By virtue of section 13 suits and proceedings in execution are altogether barred, and the only ,method of ejecting a tenant after the Act comes into force is that an application has to be made to the Rent Controller under section

13. The wording of section 13 is such that it will cover even the case of a decree passed on a certificate granted by the Controller under the Sind Rent Restriction Act, and there is no reason for assuming that this was not the intention. The West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act was passed with the object of making uniform the law in the various areas of West Pakistan wherein previously different Rent Restriction Acts were applicable. The authority that enacted this Act was fully conscious of the fact that under the Sind Rent Restriction Act the Controller granted only a certificate and decrees had been obtained on the basis of this certificate. If the intention were to exclude the decrees so obtained one would expect to find an exception to that effect in section

13. Learned counsel for the appellant had to accept that section 13 will be applicable unless some other provision came to his rescue. He relies on section 21 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act which is a saving clause. It runs:‑ "Repeal and savings.‑‑(1) The North‑West Frontier Province House Control Act, 1946, and the Sind Rent Restriction Act, 1952, are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Acts mentioned in sub section (1) and the expiry of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1956‑ (a) any order made by a Controller or Rent Controller or appellate or revisional authority in any proceedings under any of the said enactments before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be and have effect as an order made under this Act; (b) all proceedings which immediately before the commence ment of this Act were pending with any Controller or Rent Controller or any appellate authority under any of the said enactments, shall stand transferred to and be continued before the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, appointed or deemed to have been appointed under this Act, as if the same were instituted under the provisions of this Act and any order made in any such proceedings as aforesaid shall for all purposes have effect as an order made under this Act; and (c) all applications for revision which immediately before the commencement of this Act were pending with any revisional authority under any of the said enactments shall stand transferred to the High Court which Court shall dispose of the said applications as if they were appeals from the orders of the appellate authority." Learned counsel relies upon clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 21 which provides that an order made by the Controller in proceedings under the Sind Rent Restriction Act shall be deemed to be an order made under this Act. The difficulty, however, is that the order of the Controller merely granting a certificate could not have been made under any provision of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, and therefore it is not possible to hold that it is an order made under this Act. Even if however this order was made under this Act it will not enable the appellant to meet the objection taken by the respondent in execution proceedings, for according to section 13 a decree even though made before the commencement of this Act cannot be executed, and the only remedy left is of an application made to the Rent Controller. It is not necessary to consider how far the finding of the Rent Controller that the appellant required the shop for his own use would help the appellant in proceedings before the Rent Controller under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act. But it is clear that after the coming into force o that Act this finding by itself cannot be the basis for an order o ejectment because the certificate recognizes only that the appellant requires the premises for his own use and in section 13 there is a d further condition the existence of which is necessary for an order of ejectment, namely, that the landlord should not be occupying some other premises in the same urban area which may be suitable for his needs. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon section 17 by virtue of which orders passed by the Rent Controller can be executed by the civil Court. He contends that the order of the Controller granting him a certificate should be executed by the civil Court under this section. For more than one reason this contention' has no force. In the first place, it will be observed that section 17 refers only to orders made under section 10 and section 13 of this Act, and surely the certificate of the Controller under the Sind Rent Restriction Act cannot, by any stretch of language, he said to be an order under section 10 or section 13 of this Act. Another objection is that the order granting a certificate is not one which can be executed. We are of the opinion therefore that after the passing of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, even a decree obtained on a certificate by the Controller under the Sind Rent e Restriction Act cannot be executed, and the only remedy of the decree‑holder landlord is to apply for ejectment under section 13 to the Rent Controller. This appeal is dismissed. but we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed,