' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:-- "It is humbly prayed that this writ petition may graciously be accepted, the impugned judgment, dated 28-4-2009 passed by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Additional District Judge, Alipur, the order, dated 15-10-2008 passed by Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, learned Rent Controller, Alipur and also the orders, dated 6-11-2009 and 12-11-2009 passed by Mr. Asim Mansoor, learned Rent Controller, Alipur in the execution petition filed by Mian Muhammad Ijaz respondent No,3 herein, against the petitioner judgment-debtor may graciously be set aside/quashed by declaring the same as illegal and without lawful authority and the ejectment petition titled "Mian Muhammad Ijaz Khalil v.
Muhammad Akhtar Shehzad" may graciously be remanded back to the learned Rent Controller, Alipur for decision afresh on merits and strictly in accordance with law and with the provisions of Order XLI, C.P.C. After recording the evidence of the parties on the issues already framed by him on 20-9-2008."
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,3 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner regarding the shop contending that after the death of his predecessor-in-interest, Muhammad Akhtar Shehzad, the present petitioner/tenant got the shop on rent vide agreement, dated 4-8- 2003 but the said tenant has become defaulter and shop is required for personal need and tenancy period has been elapsed.
3. On 20-9-2008 case was fixed for evidence of applicant. On 15-10-2008 the Rent Controller ordered under section 13(6) of Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, the defendant petitioner to deposit Rs,17500 as of arrears of rent. On the next date of hearing i.e, 20-10-2008 the Rent Controller struck off the defence of the petitioner vide order, dated 30-10-2009. Petitioner could not deposit Rs,17500 as required by order, dated 30-10-2009.
4. As the petitioner/respondent in ejectment petition did not make the compliance of order passed under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. Learned trial Court straightway passed the ejectment order of the petitioner/respondent. Petitioner assails the order, dated 20-10- 2008 by which defence of the petitioner was struck off. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Alipur, assailing order, dated 15-10-2008 by which order his defence was struck off. Learned Additional District Judge, Alipur, vide order, dated 28-4-2008 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
5. Later on, applicant/landlord filed an application on 29-7-2009 for entrustment of the execution petition to some other Court of learned Rent Controller as Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, learned Rent Controller was entrusted the criminal cases and on this application execution petition was entrusted to Mr. Asim Mansoor, learned Rent Controller, Alipur in execution petition on 31-7-2009 notice was issued to judgment-debtor for 16-10-2009. On 16-10-2009, notices were again issued to judgment-debtor for 6-11-2009. After obtaining the report from the Ahlmad, notice was ordered to be issued against the judgment-debtor for 6-11-2009. On 6-11-2009 it was reported by the Process Server that judgment-debtor has refused to accept the notice. On this report the process server, learned Rent Controller ordered for issuance of warrant Dakhal. On 10-11-2009 Bailiff of Civil Court made an application before the Rent Controller, Alipur for issuance of order of Qufal Shilcni with the help of the police, on which, report was called from the Ahlmad after procuring the report learned Rent Controller vide his order, dated 12-11-2009 issued order for Qufal Shikni. The petitioner did not assail order, dated 28-4-2009 by which order appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Alipur and this order got the finality. Subsequently, the petitioner cannot assail the execution proceedings as he failed to assail the order, dated 28-4-2009 by which appeal filed by him was dismissed. The execution Court committing no illegality, passing order in execution proceedings against the petitioner and the orders passed on different dates on different applications in favour of the decree-holder/applicant landlord, all orders are legal do not need interference of this Court in writ jurisdiction. Present petitioner did not assail order, dated 28-4- 2009, which got status of finality. This writ petition is dismissed.