MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KASUR throughTehsil Nazim vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---An application filed by respondent No,3 for ejectment of respondent No,4 from a shop located in Kasur urban area was contested. It was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 10-2-2005. A first appeal was dismissed on 11-5-2005. Second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 2-11-2006. Execution process was commenced. On 10-3-2007 the petitioner filed objection petition within the meaning of Order XXI, Rules 99 to 101, C.P.C. The objections were contested and were dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 8-5-2007. A revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by a learned A.D.J., Kasur, on 21-5-2007.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 21-5-2007 of the learned A.D.J., Kasur, is without lawful authority inasmuch as he has refused to exercise jurisdiction vesting in him under the law and has advised the petitioner to file a civil suit. According to the learned counsel, the claim of title/possession being raised by the petitioner can be decided only by the executing Court and not through a civil suit, which is barred by law. He relies on the case of Mst.

Khurshid Begum and others v. Mr. Ghulam Kurra and others 1982 SCM R 90. The learned counsel for respondent No,3, on the other hand, contends that the said judgment would not be applicable after the amendment of section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, vide amendment Ordinance No, IX of 1979.

3. I have gone through the copies of the documents, appended with this writ petition. Section 17 as it stood pre and post the said amendment is hereunder: Pre-Amendment "17. Execution of Orders.--Every order made under section 10 or section 13, and every order passed on appeal under section 15 shall be executed by a Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area as if it were a decree of that Court."

Post-Amendment "17. Execution of Orders.--Every order made under section 10, section 13, section 13-B and every order passed in appeal under section 15, shall be executed by the Controller as if it were a decree of a Civil Court."

' Upon a plain reading of the amended provision in juxtaposition to the earlier wordings of the same, I am not in agreement with the said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent.

What is of significance is that whether it was a civil Court or a Rent Controller the order had to be executed as a decree of a civil Court. This being so, all provisions applicable to execution of a decree of a civil Court would be applicable including those under which the objections were filed and under the law the same have to be decided by the learned Executing Court.

4. In the present case, the learned Executing Court, in fact, had decided the objections vide order dated 8-5-2007 and dismissed the same after stating reasons. The learned A.D.J. Instead of adjudicating the appeal with reference to the said reasons stated by the learned Executing A Court, of course, after hearing the parties has proceeded to dispose of the appeal and in the process the parties have been made to embark upon a long litigation. I, therefore, do find that the impugned order passed by the learned A.D.J. In refusing to decide the matter is without lawful authority and is accordingly declared as such. The writ petition accordingly is allowed. The impugned order dated 21-5-2007 of the learned A.D.J., Kasur, is set aside. The result would be that the revision filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Kasur, on 3-4-2008. The learned District Judge shall requisition the record and proceed to decide the revision himself or entrust it to a learned A.D.J. Who will decide the revision on its merits.

No orders as to costs.

5. A copy of this judgment be remitted to the learned District Judge, Kasur immediately.