' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---This Civil Revision under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 impugns the order dated 1-2-2011 passed by learned Special Judge (Rent) Lahore whereby attachment of the petitioner's property is ordered. It also assails the order dated 30-3-2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge Lahore whereby petitioner's appeal against the order dated 1- 2-2011 has been dismissed.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are against law and facts without application of judicious mind and liable to set aside; that the arrears of rent and utility bills claimed by the respondent through execution petition are beyond the period of tenancy as well as liable to be adjusted towards the security amount, paid to the respondent in advance at the time of commencement of tenancy.
3. It is resisted by learned counsel for the respondent with the contentions that the learned Special Judge (Rent) Lahore has got the authority to determine the rent and utility bills payable to landlord/respondent by the petitioner/tenant and a final order of determination of rent and other utility bills is executable by the learned Special Judge (Rent) Lahore himself as a decree of civil court; that there is no jurisdictional error or any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below, therefore, petitioner has no case to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Perusal of record transpires that on 5-11-2004 respondent lodged an ejectment petition under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioner resisted the said ejectment petition which was ultimately disposed of on 7-3-2009 on the basis of the statements of the parties in the manner that rate of rent between the parties was determined at the rate of Rs.30,000 per month to be paid on 15th of the succeeding month through deposit in the Bank and in default petitioner will be liable to ejectment. The tenancy period was fixed up till 31-7-2011 and thereafter petitioner will liable to vacate the premises otherwise respondent will be entitled to recover the possession through filing of execution petition and that maintenance of the rented premises will be responsibility of the respondent. On 6-10-2009, respondent lodged an execution petition seeking execution of the order dated 7-3-2009 alleging default in the payment of the rent and claimed recovery of possession and arrears of rent, etc. Respondent/decree holder also submitted a chart of outstanding amounts against the petitioner/judgment debtor. Learned counsel for the judgment debtor obtained a couple of opportunities from the learned executing court with the commitment to pay the outstanding amount/dues to the decree holder but failed. Consequently respondent submitted fardtaleeqa of the property owned by the petitioner/judgment -debtor whereupon the learned Special Judge (Rent) Lahore passed an order of attachment against the petitioner. Being dis-satisfied petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 30-3-2011.
6. On 3-5-2011 learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing his case at preadmission stage categorically submitted that the amount claimed by the respondent is not due rather only a sum of Rs.60,000 i.e. Rent for two months was due and adjustable against security held by the respondent in the sum of Rs.48,000 and further pointed out that the bill raised by WASA in the sum of Rs.1,90,790 was being contested by the petitioner and he has undertaken to clear the same and that in view of the matter the order of attachment was harsh and illegal. In the light of the above- noted contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner preadmission notice was issued. Record further reveals that on account of default in the payment of rent fixed by virtue of the order dated 7-3-2009 against the petitioner possession of disputed premises was delivered to the respondent on 11-10-2010. Therefore, learned Special Judge (Rent) is competent to determine the final rent due against the petitioner. Reliance be made upon Ghulam Rasool v. Said Rasool and 2 others (PLD 1990 Lahore 457). Simultaneously, learned counsel for the petitioner himself during his preliminary arguments before this Court on 3-5-2011 at pre-admission stage categorically stated that the utility bills raised by WASA in the sum of Rs.1,90,790 was being contested by the petitioner and he has undertaken to clear the same.
7. At this juncture it may be expedient to note that the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 stood repealed by the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 w.e.f. 16-11-2007.
Section 35 of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance 2007 reads below:-- "Repeal and savings.---(1) The Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (late) (VI of 1959), is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Ordinance VI of 1959 (late);
(a) a proceeding pending before a Rent Controller shall stand transferred to the Rent Tribunal of the district or the area and the same shall be decided by the Rent Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Ordinance;
(b) an appeal may be filed against an order passed under the repealed Ordinance in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Ordinance.
( c ) an appeal pending under the repealed Ordinance may be decided in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Ordinance; and
(d) a Rent Controller appointed under the repealed Ordinance shall exercise and perform the functions of a Rent Tribunal and a Rent Registrar till the appointment of a Special Judge (Rent) and a Rent Registrar for the district or the area under this Ordinance."
8. The above-noted provisions of Ordinance of 2007 held the field up till the enforcement of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 promulgated on 17-11-2009 whereby Ordinance of 2007 stood repealed. Sections 35 and 36 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 are reproduced as under:-- "35. Repeal and savings.---(1) The Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (late) (VI of 1959), is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Ordinance VI of 1959 (late);
(a) a proceeding pending before a Rent Controller shall stand transferred to the Rent Tribunal of the district or the area and the same shall be decided by the Rent Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Ordinance;
(b) an appeal may be filed against an order passed under the repealed Ordinance in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Ordinance.
(c) an appeal pending under the repealed Ordinance may be decided in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Ordinance; and
(d) a Rent Controller appointed under the repealed Ordinance shall exercise and perform the functions of a Rent Tribunal and a Rent Registrar till the appointment of a Special Judge (Rent) and a Rent Registrar for the district or the area under this Act.
'
36. Repeal and validation.---(1) The Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 (XXI of 2007) is hereby repealed. .
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, anything done, proceedings or action taken, order or rule made, liability incurred or right acquired under the Ordinance XXI of 2007 or purported to have been done, taken, made, incurred or acquired under that Ordinance, from the date of promulgation of the Ordinance till the coming into force of this Act, shall be deemed to have been done, taken, made, incurred or acquired under this Act."
9. In the above factual and legal position it is crystal clear that learned Special Judge (Rent) Lahore while exercising the powers of Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to determine finally the amount of rent/dues from the tenant as well as utility bills pertaining to the period of tenancy till the delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the landlord and to order its payment to the, landlord and in default thereof to execute such order as a decree of civil Court in terms of sections 13 and 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Rule 30 of the Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 manifest mode of execution of decree which reads below:-- "Decree for payment of money.- Every decree for the payment of money, including a decree for the payment of money as the alternative to some other relief, may be executed by the detention in [-] prison of the judgment-debtor, or by the attachment and sale of his property or by both."
10. Simultaneously, Rule 42 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the provision of attachment of the property for execution of the decree. The same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-- "Attachment in case of decree for rent or mesne profits or other matter, amount of which to be subsequently determined.---Where a decree directs an inquiry as to rent or mesne profits or any other matter, the property of the judgment-debtor .May, before the mount due from him has been ascertained, be attached, as in the case of an ordinary decree for the payment of money."
11. Careful and accumulative appraisal of the above quoted provisions of law and facts, therefore, makes it crystal clear that the impugned order dated 1-2-2011 for attachment of the property of the petitioner/ judgment-debtor passed by learned Special Judge (Rent) does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. Simultaneously, order dated 30-3-2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge Lahore dismissing the petitioner's appeal and confirming the order dated 1-2-2011 is also in accordance with law and facts and does not call for any interference by this Court through revisionsal jurisdiction. Reliance is made upon Ashfaq ur Rehman v. Ch.Muhammad Afzal (PLD 1968 Supreme Court 230), Syed Akhlaque Hussain v. Habib Ismail Bajwa, Advocate (1974 SCMR 704) and Ghulam Rasool v. Said Rasool and 2 others (PLD 1990 Lahore 457).
12. For the above reasons, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below. Therefore, this Civil Revision having no merit is dismissed.