MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- Petitioner, through the filing of the present Constitutional petition, has called in question judgment dated 7.5.2004, whereby the learned Additional District Judge accepted respondent No. 3's appeal, dismissed petitioner's objection petition and directed the learned Rent Controller to proceed with the execution petition in accordance with law.
2. Facts necessary for the decision of the present are that the respondent No. 3 filed the ejectment petition, seeking the eviction of the petitioner from the questioned shop on different grounds, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 21.7.2000. The respondent challenged the said order before the appellate authority and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties arrived at a compromise and the learned Additional District Judge, after recording the terms of the settlement, accepted the appeal, vide order dated 9.10.2001. Subsequently, the respondent filed the execution petition, thereby alleging noncompliance of certain terms of the compromise by the petitioner, upon which he filed the objection petition, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 2.6.2003. However, the said order was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 23.8.2003 and the execution petition was rejected. Yet another execution application was filed by the respondent alleging. That the rent for the months of January, February, March, June and July, 2003 was not deposited according to the terms of the compromise. The petitioner again filed the objection petition, inter alia, pleading that the second execution application is barred by the principle of res judicl. The learned Executing Court, while accepting the objection petition, dismissed the execution petition, vide order dated 10.12.2003. The said order was assailed by respondent No. 3 before the appellate authority, which accepted his appeal, dismissed the objection petition and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution petition, vide judgment dated 7.5.2004, hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order dated 10.12.2003; passed on the execution application arising out of rent proceedings, was not appealable before the appellate authority, under section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance), therefore, the impugned judgment dated 7.5.2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, upon the incompetent appeal, whereby order dated 10.12.2003 was set aside, is without jurisdiction. He has added that as the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge was not maintainable, therefore, the ensuing order has no legal value. In this regard, he has relied upon Jalal Khan vs. Habibullah (NLR 1988 AC 11), Haji Abdul Wall Khan vs. Muhammad Hanif (NLR 1986 CLJ 492) and Haji Muhammad Ramzan, etc. Vs. Abdur Rashid, etc. (NLR 1997 Civil 352). He has next contended that the objection regarding jurisdiction of a Court can be raised at any stage. He has referred to the judgments, reported as Shaikh Muhammad Amjad Vs. The State (2002 P.Cr.L.J. 1317) Mst. Samina Gul Vs. Zainab Din (PLD 2002 Peshawar 30) and Commissioner of Income Tax and Waalth Tax Sargodha Zone, Sargodha vs. Messrs lrshad Anwar & Co. (2002 PTD 750). Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent, while refuting the aforenoted contentions, has submitted that after the amendment introduced in the Ordinance, 1959 by Punjab Ordinance, IX of .1979, on 12.9.1979, order passed by the learned Rent Controller, in execution proceedings under section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, is appealable under section 15(1) of the Ordinance. He has relied upon Haji Abdul Wali Khan and another .Vs. Muhammad Hanif and another (1991 SCMR 2457), Attaul Hague and others vs. Additional District Judge and another (1992 MLD 1409), Muhammad Safdar vs. Sardar Muhammad and others (1991 MLD 1587) and Manzoor Hussain vs. Muhammad Ali and another (1990 MLD 1227).
4. As is evident from the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the only question, which arises for determination by this Court, is as to whether an order passed by the Rent Controller, in execution proceedings of an order of eviction, under section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance is appealable under section 15 of the Ordinance. The said legal question was considered and thoroughly examined in the case of Haji Abdul Wall Khan and another (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan came to the authoritative conclusion that order of the Controller passed on the execution application under section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 'Ordinance, is appealable under section 15 of the Ordinance. The said principle of law was followed by this Court in the afore-noted cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. It was held in the case of Manzoor Hussain (ibid) that before the amendment, the - right of appeal, under section 15 of the Ordinance was provided only against orders passed by the Rent Controller under sections 4, 10, 12 and 13 of the Ordinance and the affect of the amendment, made in sections 15 and 17 of the Ordinance; is that a final order passed by Rent Controller under any of the provisions of the Ordinance has been made appealable. The same principle was followed in the case of Muhammad Safdar (supra). It was held in the case of Attaul Hague (ibid) that the scope of appeal, under. Section 15 of the Ordinance, against orders passed by the Rent Controller, was enlarged by the substitution of section 15 providing therein, that any party aggrieved of an order of Rent Controller finally disposing of an application under the Ordinance could prefer appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area where the building/premises in relation to which such order was passed, was situate.
5. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Haji Abdul Wali Khan (supra), which is binding upon all the Courts pursuant to Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which principle of law was followed in the afore-noted judgments, I am constrained to hold that any final order passed by the learned Rent Controller under Section 17 of the Ordinance is appealable to the District Judge under section 15(1) of the Ordinance'. As regards the judgments relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to say that in view of the law declared by the apex Court of the Country in the case of Haji Abdul Wall Khan (ibid) the same are of no avail to the petitioner.
6. In the above perspective, order dated 10.12.2003, passed by the learned Rent Controller, in exercise of its powers under section 17 of the Ordinance, was appealable before the learned District Judge, under section 15 of the Ordinance and the appeal before the learned District Judge was competent, hence the impugned judgment dated 7.5.2004 does not call for any interference by this Court, thus, the same is maintained.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present petition is devoid of merits, thus, stands dismissed. However, as question of law was involved, the parties are left to bear their own costs.