2001MLD919 (PLP)

Hafiz Khalil Ahmad for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Lehrasap Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th January; 2001. This judgment shall decide Second Appeal from Orders Nos.225 of 2000, 226 of 2000 and 227 of 2000 as common questions are involved in all the three cases.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant filed ejectment petitions against the respondents in these three Second Appeal from Orders who were occupying shops as his tenants. The ejectment was sought on the ground of reconstruction. The matter remained pending and ultimately was decided by the learned Rent Controller in the light of agreement arrived at between the parties. The terms were that the respondents in all these three cases were to hand over the vacant possession of the shops to the appellant by 31‑8‑1998 and thereafter the appellant was to reconstruct the shops within seven months and to let out the same to the respondents subject to the payment of rent agreed between the parties in their respective statements. Admittedly the respondents did hand over the possession as agreed and the shops were demolished and reconstructed. However, as it happened, the possession was not delivered back to the respondents who filed applications before the learned Rent Controller, for restoration of possession in terms of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 27‑5‑1998 in the ejectment petition. The defence taken up by the appellant was that he did offer the shops to the respondents in terms of the said order but they refused to take the shops on rent and thus, he proceeded to let out the shops to somebody else. The learned Rent Controller framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. Vide order dated 12‑5‑2000 the appellant was directed to deliver the possession of the shops to the respondents. A first appeal filed by the appellant was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din who dismissed the same on 4‑10‑2000. 2‑A. Learned counsel for the respondents is present pursuant to the notice issued for limine hearing. Both the learned counsel agree that the certified copies of the relevant recd‑rd stand appended with the file of all the three S.A.Os. These cases are being decided as pacca cases.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass the order as the applications were not competent under section 13(5)(8) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Elaborating his contention learned counsel states that under the said provision of law where a tenant had delivered possession pursuant to an ejectment order passed under section 13(2)(vi) of the said Ordinance then before completion of construction and before occupation of the premises by another party the tenant has to apply for restoration of possession. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that under the admitted facts of the present case the matter was not governed by section 13(5)(B) but by the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 27‑5‑1998 with agreement of the parties and that the learned Rent Controller had very rightly directed the appellant to deliver the possession in terms of the same. Relies on the case of Chaudhry Munawar Khan and another v. Muhammad Hanif and another (1997 SCMR 517).

4. I have gone through the certified copies of the pleadings and the evidence appended with the files of these S.A.Os. with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The factual position turns out the same as has already been narrated by me above. The judgment in the said case of Ch. Munawar Khan relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is squarely applicable to the facts narrated above. In the said case also a compromise had been arrived at between the parties in a writ petition arising out of a case filed under section 13(2)(vi) of the said Ordinance and a similar agreement was arrived at. I may state here that the contentions raised before the apex Court on behalf of the learned counsel for landlord are stated in para. 2 of the said report and one of the contentions was the same as being raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the present case. The same were rejected and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller for delivery of possession as upheld by the appellate authority and this Court was affirmed. No grounds having been made out for interference with the impugned orders. all these S.A.Os. are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M/457/L Appeal dismissed.