' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 14-10-2002 the petitioner filed an application for ejectment of the respondent. I deem it necessary to note here that the respondent (Muhammad Rafiq) was arrayed as respondent No.1 while Muhammad Mukhtar son of Muhammad Yamin was arrayed as respondent No.2. This person has not been impleaded as a party in this civil revision. Now it was pleaded in the ejectment petition that the petition and his brothers and sisters gave the suit building on rent to the said respondent No.1 on 1-10-2000 subject to payment of Rs.12,000 per month as rent and delivered possession to him. Thereafter, the said respondent No.1 in partnership with the said respondent No.2 set up a factory in the said building. The NOC is in favour of the said respondent No.1 and his wife Nasim Akhtar. Thereafter, it was stated that the respondents have defaulted in payment of rent and have also impaired the value and utility of the building and further that it is required by the said owner/landlord for personal use and occupation. Both the said respondents were proceeded against ex parte on 18-1-2003 pursuant to publication notice in a newspaper. The case was adjourned to 8-2-2003 for recording ex parte evidence. It was so adjourned for several dates. On 17-5-2003 it was noted that an Advocate has filed power of attorney for the said respondent No.2 and an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings has also been filed. This application was allowed on the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner on 2-7-2003. On 13-9-2003 a written reply was filed by the said respondent No.2. The case was adjourned for framing of the issues. It may be noted here that a copy of this reply has not been filed with this civil revision.
2. Now on 14-10-2003 the then Rent Controller noted that he has examined the pleadings and it is evident that the building was let out to the said respondent No.1 who has been proceeded against ex parte and he called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to address him in the matter of the order to be passed under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
The case was adjourned on several dates. It appears that meanwhile the said learned Rent Controller who made the observations on 14-10-2003 was transferred. On 14-4-2004 an order was passed directing the said respondent No.2 to deposit the arrears of rent. I deem it appropriate to note here that the learned Rent Controller has observed in this order that the said respondent No.2 has expressed ignorance in the matter of payment of rent. Still he was directed to deposit arrears and to pay the future rent before the 15th of every month. I may further note here that no date for deposit of arrears was given. The case was taken up on 6-5-2004 when adjournment was sought to produce the rent receipts. The case was then taken up on 13-5-2004. The statement of the said respondent No.2 was recorded that he has not deposited the rent. Thereafter, an order was passed; the relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:-- "2. Today the respondent No.2 has got recorded his statement to the effect that he has not deposited the said rent. Therefore, non-compliance of the order dated 14-4-2004 passed by this Court the defence of the respondent No.2 is hereby struck ott. Respondent No.2 is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises immediately to the petitioner and will be also liable to make payment of the above said arrear of rent and also 'monthly rent at the rate of Rs.12,000 per month till the delivery of possession. So the petition is accepted in the above said terms. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion."
3. On 17-5-2004 an execution petition was filed. On 18-5-2004 a warrant for possession was issued.
This warrant was executed at the spot by the Bailiff who delivered possession to the petitioner on 23-5-2004.
4. In the meanwhile on 19-5-2004 the respondent filed an application for setting aside order dated 13-5-2004. On the same date, a stay order was issued.
5. On 9-10-2004 the respondent filed an application for restoration of possession in the course of execution proceedings. Vide order dated 30-5-2005 the learned Rent Controller directed the restoration of possession. His finding was that there is no order of ejectment against the present. A first appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Multan, on 3-2-2006.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the said ejectment order does not show that the respondent was directed to deliver possession to the petitioner. He, however, insists that since the said application for setting aside ex parte ejectment order dated 13-5-2004 has been fixed for evidence, the order should have been passed after the decision of the same after recording evidence.
7. I have already detailed above the entire history of this case as gleaned from the several documents appended with this writ petition. Now the ejectment petition clearly narrates that it is the respondent who is the tenant and whom the possession was delivered. So far as the respondent No.2 in the ejectment petition is concerned, it is an admitted that he is the brother's son of the petitioner and he was stated to be a partner of the respondent in the factory that was installed under the terms of the tenancy agreement. The Rent Controller earlier dealing with the matter had clearly expressed doubt while recording order dated 14-10-2003 as noted by me above.
Somehow or the other a direction was issued to the said respondent No.2 on 14-4-2004 to deposit arrears and future rent. It will be interesting to note that although no date was fixed for deposit of arrears which were calculated as Rs.5,04,000 from 1-11-2000 to 14-4-2000 still he was found guilty of non-compliance of the said order. So far as the future rent is concerned that was to be deposit before 15th of the following month which was May, 2004 and the ejectment order was passed on 13-5-2004 i.e. Before the default could have taken place even in the matter of future rent. It is but evident on the face of the record that the learned Rent Controller acted in a reckless manner without any application of mind whatsoever to the file of the case resulting in the dispossession of the respondent against whom no ejectment order was passed who, of course, had not committed any default of any order passed against him for deposit of rent. I may further note here that the proceedings and report of the bailiff on the warrant of possession (Annexure "J") narrate that the said respondent No.2 has removed the entire goods. The said report further narrates that the bailiff found the said respondent No.2, and a son of the respondent and a Security Guard on the spot who were shown the warrant whereupon the respondent No.2 removed the machinery, etc. And delivered possession to the petitioner. It will, thus, be seen that not only the possession was illegally taken away and delivered to the petitioner but his nephew also removed all the machinery present at the spot.
8. To my mind, the orders passed by the learned Courts below are not only legal but minently just.
The civil revision is dismissed in limine.
9. A copy of this order be immediately remitted to the learned Executing Court who shall take all steps to deliver back the possession with the same swiftness that with which it was taken over from the respondent.