SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J.- Through this petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.08.2020 and the judgment dated 14.09.2020, whereby application seeking dismissal of the execution petition as well as the appeal filed by him were dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur.
2. Brief facts necessary for decision of the instant petition are that the petitioner was a tenant for a period of ten years i.e. from 01.05.2012 to 30.04.2022 under Sheikh Nasir Mahmood, who filed an ejectment petition on 02.12.2017. The petitioner filed a petition for leave to defend, but the same was dismissed being time barred and ejectment petition was accepted vide order dated 24.12.2018. An execution petition was filed, during pendency of which respondents No.3 to 5, who had purchased the property in question and had also entered into a rent agreement dated 01.09.2018 with the petitioner, also filed an execution petition. The petitioner filed an application for dismissal of the said second execution petition, but the same was dismissed vide order 27.08.2020 and the appeal filed by him also met with the same fate vide judgment dated 14.09.2020. Hence the instant petition.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was a tenant under Sheikh Nasir Mahmood, whose ejectment petition was accepted on 24.12.2018, which order having not been assailed in appeal or revision has attained finality. As regards the contention that the petitioner has filed a suit for rendition of accounts against the said Sheikh Nasir Mahmood, the same is a separate issue and cannot be made basis for dismissal of execution petition. The contention that the petitioner entered into a rent agreement with respondents No.3 to 5 for a period of five years, after they purchased the property and that they have no authority to file the execution petition on the basis of ejectment order passed in favour of the earlier owner i.e. Sheikh Nasir Mahmood, has no basis at all for the reason that after transfer of property in their name respondents No.3 to 5 have a right to prosecute the matter. Furthermore, an ejectment order is to be executed like a decree, therefore, the powers contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked by an executing Court and benefit of the provisions as contained in rules 10 and 16 of Order XXI, CPC is applicable to rent proceedings.
5. It was the contention of the petitioner that neither respondents No.3 to 5 purchased the property from Sheikh Nasir Mehmood nor were they party in the ejectment petition and that without getting them impleaded as party thereto or filing another ejectment petition against the petitioner, they filed a petition for execution of order dated 24.12.2018 passed in favour of Sheikh Nasir Mahmood and that too during the pendency of his own execution petition. However, in view of his own admission, the petitioner was tenant under Sheikh Nasir Mahmood, who filed an ejectment petition, whereupon order dated 24.12.2018 was passed and execution petition was pending. It is also an admitted fact that respondents No.3 to 5 entered into rent agreement dated 01.09.2018 with the petitioner for a period of five years. In view thereof, status of the petitioner remained as 'tenant' and could not be changed by transfer of property. It is also on the record that despite repeated directions neither the petitioner deposit rent nor did he vacate the premises and that although, as claimed by him, he entered into a rent agreement with respondents No.3 to 5, but failed to show any proof of payment of rent to the said respondents as well. Therefore, in view of the fact that respondents No.3 to 5 having purchased the property in question, stepped into the shoes of Sheikh Nasir Mahmood, and in view of existence of earlier ejectment order dated 24.12.2018, they were not required to file fresh ejectment petition and had a right to prosecute the proceedings initiated by Sheikh Nasir Mahmood, but if they have filed fresh petition, it would be deemed to be in continuation of the earlier one, which would be disposed of as having become infructuous and would not be a bar against the fresh petition.
6. Even otherwise, when the title of property stands transferred, new owner has a right to prosecute the matter and since the ejectment order is to be executed like a decree, the powers contained in the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked by an executing Court. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the case of Mst. Humera Sajid vs. Muqarrab Khan Puni and another (2008 CLC 650). Furthermore, second execution petition should plausibly be treated as continuation of the earlier one or ancillary thereto in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank Limited vs. Fateh Hayat Khan Tawana and others (2015 SCMR 1335).
7. For what has been discussed above, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality having been committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned order and judgment. This petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.