' SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.---This civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 16-9-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore whereby he accepted the appeal filed by Ch. Abdul Mannan and Tariq Masud/respondents/tenants, set aside the order dated 13-5-2010 passed by executing Court/Rent Tribunal dismissing their objection and remanded the objection petition to the executing Court with the direction to consider the claims of the respondents/tenants and then to proceed with the execution proceedings strictly in accordance with law.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Haji Muhammad Ashraf petitioner being owner of plot No,4 (Link Autos) situated at Link Road Model Town Lahore filed an ejectment petition against the respondents/tenants under section 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises B Ordinance 2007 (Now Act of 2009) on the ground of default in payment of rent and annual increase. On 15-9-2009 the respondents/tenants moved an application for the grant of leave to defend the ejectment petition.
However, despite availing several opportunities for arguments on the leave application, the respondents absented from the Court due to which the leave application was dismissed in default and the ejectment petition was allowed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) Lahore vide order dated 18-12-2009. Against this decision, the respondents/tenants filed> an appeal without affixing required court-fee. They again defaulted in complying with the orders of the appellate Court/learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore requiring fixation of required court-fee on the memorandum of appeal and submission of rent receipts. Their appeal was, therefore, dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore vide order dated 24-2-2010. The petitioner/landlord then moved lc an application for the execution of ejectment order dated 18-12-2009. After dismissal of appeal of respondents Nos.1 and 2/tenants, the executing Court started execution proceedings and on 5-3-2010 the petitioner/landlord was given possession of the rented property through bailiff of the Court. The execution petition was, however, kept pending for the recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs,4,50,000. The respondents Nos.1 and 2/tenants filed a writ petition against the orders dated 18-12-2009 and 24-2-2010 passed by the Special Judge (Rent) and the learned Additional District Judge Lahore respectively. Simultaneously the respondents/ tenants also filed an objection petition before the executing Court contending that in para No,2 of the ejectment petition, the petitioner/landlord admitted that he received rent till March, 2009 but in the final order dated 18-12-2009, Special Judge(Rent) ordered that the petitioner/landlord is entitled to recover arrears of rent at the rate of Rs,50.000 p.m since February 2009 till the vacation of the D premises. In this way the Rent Tribunal exceeded his powers and the order of the Rent Controller is contrary to the admitted facts of the case. It is claimed that the respondents/tenants after taking the plot on rent invested more than Rs,4,00,000 on its improvement and established a car workshop there. A room was also constructed by spending Rs,1,50,000. Rs,1,00,000 was spent on the soil and bricks floor while Rs,40,000 was spent on iron wires upon outside walls. Another amount of more than Rs,70,000 was spent on different types of work. Neither the ejectment petition nor the appeal was decided on merits. The petitioner/landlord settled the matter with the respondents/tenants outside the Court in which the security amount of Rs,2,00,000 and improvements made by the respondents/tenants were adjusted in the arrear of rent but the respondents/tenants failed to appear before the executing Court and the executing Court issued their non-bailable warrants without deciding the question ,involved in the matter. Opportunity of show-cause notice was also not given to the respondents/tenants. The petitioner took possession of the rented premises on 5-3-2010 through bailiff of the Court. The respondents/tenants handed over the possession as per commitment of the petitioner/landlord to adjust the amount spent by the respondents/tenants on improvements of the plot and through the security amount. On 8-4- 2010, the respondents/tenants along with counsel appeared before the executing Court and requested to call the landlord in person but their request was turned down and warrants of arrest were issued against them. The order of the executing Court is, therefore, not only harsh but also against the facts on the record as well as against the terms and conditions of the agreement where it is clearly mentioned that the respondents/tenants shall remove their improvements and the landlord shall not claim it. Neither the Court allowed to remove the improvements made by the respondents/tenants nor the petitioner/landlord fulfilled his promises to adjust this amount in arrears of rent. It is therefore, prayed that all the questions arising through the tenancy agreement including rent due, rent paid, security amount and improvements amount be decided after inquiry and both the parties be given opportunity to prove the same.
3. The petitioner/landlord contested this objection petition vide his reply in which it is contended that the executing Court has no jurisdiction to redetermine the liabilities of the parties. It has limited jurisdiction to execute the decree as it is and it cannot go behind the decree. The instant objection is outcome of mala fide and ulterior motives of the respondents/tenants so as to prolong the execution proceedings. Both the respondents/tenants are fugitive from law. So they are not entitled to any relief. The relief claimed cannot be granted by the executing Court/Special Judge (Rent) as the decree dated 18-12-2009 has attained finality and it has also been implemented to the extent of delivery of vacant possession of the suit property to the petitioner/landlord through bailiff. The High. Court did not grant any stay order to the respondents/tenants in the writ petition. So the Court cannot stop execution proceedings. On facts, it is contended that the ejectment petition was accepted after granting several opportunities of hearing to the respondents/tenants but they deliberately absented themselves from the Court on 18-12-2009 and the learned Rent Tribunal passed the order ex parte in accordance with law. The objectors had not taken the plea of improvement/investment in their application for the grant of leave to appear and defend the ejectment petition. So taking of this plea at this stage is not bona fide as they want to usurp the decretal amount with ulterior motives. No settlement between the parties ever took place outside the Court. Amount of security of Rs,2,00,000 has been adjusted in arrears of rent by the learned Special Judge (Rent) vide order dated 18-12-2009 and not by the petitioner/landlord. Possession of the rented premises was restored on 5-3-2010. By that time, the respondents/tenants had taken away all their articles, removed the improvements, if any, and vacant possession of the rented premises was handed over to the petitioner/landlord by the bailiff of the Court. It is reiterated that the executing Court has rightly turned down the objection petition of the respondents/tenants vide order dated 21-5-2010 and the learned lower appellate Court has remanded the objection petition without any sound reason and justification. The executing. Court cannot go behind the decree to determine liabilities of the respondents/tenants/judgment debtoRs, ' In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord has relied upon 1994 SCMR 22, 2002 CLC 757 Karachi and 2006 SCMR 562.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord and have also gone through the documents available on the file.
5. Section 31 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 reads as under:- "31. Execution of ordeRs,---A Rent Tribunal shall execute an order passed under this Act by a Rent Tribunal or a District Judge or an Additional District Judge as a decree of a civil Court and for this purpose, the Rent Tribunal may exercise any or all the powers of a civil Court."
6. On plain reading of the above provision of law, it is quite clear that all provisions applicable to execution of a decree of a civil Court will be applicable including those under which the objections are filed and under the law the same have to be decided by the Executing Court. In this regard reference can be made to Muhammad Tariq Khan v. Kh. Muhammad Jawad Asami and others, 2007 SCMR 818 and Municipal. Committee Kasur through Tehsil Nazim v. Additional District Judge Kasur and 3 others, PLD 2008 Lahore 230.
7. In view of above, there appears no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order of remand passed by the learned Additional. District Judge Lahore dated 16-9-2010.
' The civil revision has no merits and the same is dismissed in limine.