JAMIL AHMED Versus MUHAMMAD ALI

ORDER

1. Granted.

2. The admitted position is that the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 1-10-1965 in Rent Case No. 279/65 on the ground of default in payment of rent @ Rs. 500 ,per month from December, 1964 to September, 1965 was set aside by the learned A.D.J. in 1st Appeal by his order dated 14-12-1970. The High Court, however, by order dated 2nd March, 1976 passed in II-Appeal No. 79/71 reversed the above order of first appellate authority and restored the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed execution application which was allowed and ultimately the appellant was ejected from the premises in question on 27 th August, 1976. In the meanwhile, the proceedings for fixation of fair rent (R.C. No. 916/61) filed by the appellant ultimately culminated in favour of the appellant inasmuch as the II-Appeal No. 395/69 filed by the appellant was allowed by this Court on 4th October, 1976 thereby the rent of Rs. 500 per month originally fixed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the first appellate authority, was reduced to Rs. 335 per month. The respondents No. 1 and 2 assailed the said order of the High Court before the Supreme Court by filing C.P.A. No. 9L-K/1980 but did not pursue the same with the result that it was ultimately dismissed on 6-5-1987.

Consequent to the fixation of fair rent by this Court at Rs. 335 per month as against Rs. 500 per month, on the basis of which the default in payment of rent for the above period was claimed, the appellant filed an application under section 20 of General Clauses Act read with sections 1.2 (2) and 141, CPC and also read with section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, before the learned Rent Controller, requesting him to order the restoration of the possession of the premises in question to him as, according to him, fraud had been perpetrated on the Court in getting him evicted from the premises in question on 27th August, 1976. The learned Rent Controller, by her impugned order dated 15th October, 1988, has dismissed the application for restoration of possession. It may further be mentioned here that during the pendency of the restoration application, the respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 approached the Rent Controller for being impleaded as party to the proceedings as they had purchased the property in question from the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and taken over possession thereof. They were accordingly allowed to be joined as party in the proceedings.

The learned Rent Controller while rejecting the application for restoration of possession has observed that the ejectment order of the Rent Controller dated 19-I1-1969 stood merged in the order of the High Court dated 2nd March, 1976, passed in 11-Appeal No. 395/69 and as such she was not competent to pass any order in the pending restoration proceedings before her, as the matter had been decided by the High Court of Sind, The learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfy me that the learned Rent Controller had in any manner gone wrong or committed any error in reaching the above conclusion and rejecting the application. The impugned order therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity so as to ex facie justify any interference with her order by this Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed in limine.

Mr. Mahfoozul Haq, learned counsel for the appellant states that observations may be made in this order to the effect that the appellant shall be at liberty to adopt requisite proceedings before the High Court. I do not find any justification to do so inasmuch as it is always open to a party to adopt any proceedings which he is entitled in law to adopt.

M.Y.H/J-70/K

Appeal dismissed.