KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-Muhammad Bashir petitioner (hereinafter called the landlord) filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan I Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 against respondent Muhammad Ramzan (tenant) for his eviction from the property in dispute. The application was decreed ex parte on 29-11-19 71. And the petitioner obtained possession of the property in execution of the aforesaid decree. The tenant applied for setting aside the ex parte decree and his prayer was accepted on 17-10-1972 and the ex parte decree was set aside. The tenant then applied for restoration of possession which had been taken over from him in execution of the ex parte decree. The Rent Controller dismissed that application on 26-1-1973, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to do so because according to him such a relief could be given by a civil Court and not a Rent Controller. The tenant filed an appeal which was accepted .By the Additional District Judge on 27-7-1974 who held that the Rent Controller in the matter of delivering possession in execution/restitution of a decree acted as a civil Court and as such he had the jurisdiction in such matters. After giving this finding he remanded the case to the' Rent Controller/Civil Court to attend to the same in accordance with law. The petitioner-landlord filed S. A. O. No. 219/74, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The petitioner has come up in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal to this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that his client being in possession it was for the civil Court only to direct restitution of possession to the landlord and that a Rent Controller had no jurisdic--petition, to deal with such proceedings. The point is not so simple. The petitioner forgets that a Rent Controller is also a civil Court. When he passes an ejectment order under section 13 of the Ordinance, he acts as a Rent Controller, but when he executes that order, he executes it as a decree of a civil Court. Consequently, in his capacity as a civil Court, he can deal with the restitution of possession also. The view taken by the Courts below is unexceptionable and calls for no interference. The petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.