AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. Through this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the judgment & decree dated 14.09.201 1 passed by the learned Additio nal District Judge, Gujranwala whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment/order dated 05.03.201 1 passed by the learne d Civil Judge/Executing Court, Gujranwala whereby the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length consisting upon three dates of hearing but the matter in issue as well as facts for determination of point in issue is not very lengthy . Admittedly an execution petition, subject matter of instant revision petition wherein objections were filed and concurrently dismissed by two courts below , is a decree passed by the learned Rent Controller in an ejectment matter .
3. First of all, I would like to take legal point so that the whole factual position could be discussed in the light of law applicable. I take light from the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "MUHAMMAD YASIN versus Sheikh GHULAM MUR TAZA and another" (PLD 1988 Supreme Court 163). I quote a paragraph from the said judgment, which is as follows:- "A Controller has no power or control over a decree of a Civil Court except for this deeming provision. Where a power to execute an order in the manner of a decree of a Civil Court is conferred then on the ordinary rule of interpretation all the powers necessary or enjoyed by the executing authority for effectively and completely executing a decree of a Civil Court shall be available to the Controller. The deeming cannot stop short or boggle.
To hold that the Controller will have the power to execute the order as a decree of the Civil Court but will have no power to decide objections to the order, and to its executability, will amount to in fact denying the Controller the very power to execute the decree itself. Such cannot be the result or the effect of the deeming clause. It has to be given full effect and the logical consequence of the empowering provision must follow."
Similarly light can also be taken from the other judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "MUHAMMAD TARIQ KHAN versus Khawaja MUHAMMAD JAWAD ASAMI and others" (2007 SCMR 818). The relevant paragraph is as under"- "It is a settled law that decree is executable in the light of the terms and conditions mentioned in the decree and the executing Court has to confine its deliberations within the purview of the decree and not beyond that. It is the duty and obligation of the executing Court to dispose of the objections filed by the objectors in the light of terms and conditions of a decree and the learned Rent Controller has no authority to deviate from a real controversy between the parties keeping in view the decree secured by the petitioner in the case in hand. The learned Rent Controller has only authority to determine the questions relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree under section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. See S. Anwar Ali Shah's case PLD 1978 Lah. 1078. It is also settled law that executing Court cannot go behind the decree. See Mst. Nasim Akhtar's case 1994 SCMR 22. It is also a settled law that preamble is key to understand the statute. See Syed Ikhlaq Hussain's case PLD 1969 Lah. 563. It is pertinent to mention here that Rent Restriction ordinance is enacted by the Legislature in its wisdom to regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant to provide them remedy for resolution of any dispute arising between them to approach the Rent Controller who is also bound to pass orders within the four-corners of the provisions of the said Ordinance. We have examined all the provisions of Rent Restriction Ordinance with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any provision on the basis of which the Rent Controller has possessed any power to award damages to the objectors. It is also a settled law that executing Court has to decide the objections keeping in view the pleading of the parties in the rent matter and the decree passed by the Rent Controller. It is no doubt that the Rent Controller has power to restore the possession to the respondents which was taken from them under the orders of the Rent Controller but the Rent Controller has no power, as mentioned above, to grant damages to the respondents. It is a settled law that our Constitution is based on trichotomy and Court has only power to interpret the law as law laid down by this court in various pronouncements. See Zia-ur-Rehman Khan's case PLD 1973 SC 49. The learned Rent Controller has exceeded its jurisdiction while restoring the possession to the respondents in its order, dated 30-10-1997 while awarding damages and this fact was overlooked by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment. It is a settled law that Presiding Officer has to decide the objection petition after judicial application of mind keeping in view the provisions of Rent Restriction Ordinance. The learned Rent Controller, as mentioned above, has decided the objection petition without judicial application of mind, therefore, his order is without lawful authority to the extent of granting damages to the objectors. See Gournga Mohan Sikdar's case PLD 1970 SC 158 and Mollah Ejahar Ali's case PLD 1970 SC
173. The Rent Controller being a persona designata has no lawful authority to decide the objection petition considering himself to be a Civil Court and was regulated by the provisions of C.P.C. The principles of C.P.C. are applicable, therefore, having a jurisdiction to decide the matter in question under a special law, therefore, Rent Controller is bound to decide the matter within the parameters prescribed by the Legislature in its wisdom keeping in view provisions of special law and not beyond that. The learned High Court has also overlooked this aspect of the case to the extent of grant of damages to the respondents by the Rent Controller. It is a settled law that when the basic order is without lawful authority then the superstructure shall have to fall on the ground automatically as law laid down by this Court in Yousaf Ali's case PLD 1958 SC 104."
Further relevant judgment of this Court on the point is "ALLAH DITT A versus MUHAMMAD UMAR and others"
(2009 YLR 181 1).
4. The main weapon of attack of petitioner is that Mst. Nusrat Bibi filed a suit against the petitioner and others on 24.12.1996 on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 08.11.1994 by their mother Mst. Sughran Bibi and the suit was decreed on the basis of a consent statement of counsel for the defendants whereby the petitioner was one of the defendants in the suit and ultimately suit was decreed vide judgment & decree dated 08.01.1997 on the basis of compromise. Mst. Nusrat Bibi got the decree implemented in Register PT-I of the Excise and Taxation Department. On the basis of a power of attorney by Mst. Nusrat Bibi in favour of Syed Aftab Zaidi the property was sold through sale deed No.10779 attested on 31.10.2006 in favour of Mst. Hameeda Bibi and Zil-e-Huma the decree holder. Muhammad Ikram was a tenant on the property in dispute against whom Zil e-Huma filed an application for eviction on 07.02.2007. Muhammad Sarwar the present petitioner/objector filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 03.04.2008 and ejectment order was passed on 07.04.2008. Muhammad Sarwar opted to file an appeal before the learned first appellate court, which was dismissed on 19.08.2008. He filed second appeal bearing SAO No.102/2008, which too, was dismissed vide judgment passed by this Court on 14.10.2008. Muhammad Ikram also filed first appeal and after its dismissal filed second appeal bearing SAO No.85/2008, which was accepted and case was remanded vide judgment dated 20.11.2008. It is stated that after remand the execution petition was accepted on 18.05.2009. The appeal there against filed by Muhammad Ikram tenant was dismissed and in SAO four months' time was granted by this Court. On 18.05.2009 decree holder filed an execution petition. The objections were filed on 18.07.2009. The reply was filed. Learned executing Court dismissed the objection petition on 05.03.2011.
Before that when no injunctive order could be procured by the petitioner, warrant of possession was executed on 23.07.2009. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner/objector that the court while executing the decree in a rent matter has also full powers as a civil court, therefore, his objection that all the objections raised by the petitioner be decided after full fledge trial as a separate civil suit is barred, is not a legal and valid argument. I am clear in my mind that if this argument is accepted and learned Rent Controller is bound down to determine the objections after full trial as a civil court, it will be against the mandate of law relating to the rented premises. When a Rent Controller has limited jurisdiction with regard to determine the matter relating to rented premises in accordance with law applicable, asking him to determine all the questions involved and objections raised with regard to execution of order as a full fledge civil court will be against the mandate of law as well as the law declared by the august Supreme Court in MUHAMMAD TARIQ KHAN' s case referred supra.
5. Even otherwise, the judgment on the basis of which the property through a registered sale deed was transferred in the name of petitioner of eviction petition was challenged through an application u/s 12 (2) of the CPC.
Admittedly said application was withdrawn on 07.03.2006 and even petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was filed by the petitioner , which too, was dismissed and even he filed first appeal as well as second appeal also as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself. In these circumstances, determination of objections by the executing Court and dismissal where of is in accordance with law. No case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s 115 of the CPC is made out. Therefore, I have no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of two courts below and as such the instant civil revision having no substance stands dismissed with costs throughout.