1. ' Today application for restoration of appeal and stay application are fixed for hearing. The learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection to the restoration of appeal if it isheard today as the appeal was ordered to be disposed of within 6 months on 22nd February, 1981. Mr. Faizanul Haque, the learned counsel for the appellant states that he is willing to argue the main appeal if it is restored. I accordingly restore the appeal by consent.
2. ' Mr. Faizanul Haque, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised two fold contentions before me. It is firstly contended that the execution application has not been signed by all the persons in whose favour the order was passed by the Rent Controller and therefore execution application is, incompetent in law. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the VIth Senior Civil Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge was not competent to entertain and dispose of the execution application as alter promulgation of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 21st of November, 1979 only the Rent Controller could entertain an execution application.
3. ' In so far the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that where a joint decree is passed in favour of several decree-holders, under Order XXI, rule 15, C.P.C. Anyone of the joint decree-holders could apply for execution of the same for the benefit of all. Although Order XXI, rule 15, C. P. C. In its terms does not apply to the proceeding before the Rent Controller under the Ordinance but in view of the fact that the Controller as the Appellate Authority under section 22 of the Ordinance has been given the discussion to determine the manner in which the orders passed by them are to be executed I see no objection to the entertainmen of the execution application by the Rent Controller by one of the joint owners of the property in whose favour a joint order of ejectment was passed in the case specially when there was neither any contrary direction of the Controller or the appellate authority in that behalf. None of the join owners/landlords of the premises raised any objection before the Controller regarding filing of execution application by one of them. In reply to the second objection of Mr. Faizanul Haque, Mr. Mustafa Lakhani contends by notification dated 21st December, 1964 all the first Class Civil Judges in West Pakistan were appointed as Rent Controller to exercise power in their respective jurisdiction under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. In view of the definition of Controller given in section 2(b) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 a Controller who was immediately before the promulgation of the Ordinance of 1979 was exercising the power of the Controller under the Ordinance of 1959 shall be deemed to be a Controller under the Ordinance of 1979. It is not disputed before me that the VIth Senior Civil Judge was exercising the powers of a Con-roller finder the Ordinance of 1959 when Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was promulgated and therefore I am in no doubt that VIth Senior Civil Judge was also a Rent Controller under Ordinance of 1979. In the execution application the respondent had mentioned the Court to which execution was filed as follows :- "In the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi."
4. ' In view of the fact that the respondent filed his application for execution before the Court of Controller, mere fact that in the order passed by that Court it is mentioned as the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge does not mean that the order was not passed by that Court as a Controller more so when it is an admitted position that the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge is a Controller under Ordinance of 1979. The objection raised by the learned Counsel is only technical in nature and cannot be upheld. No arguments were advanced on merit and in view of the above discussion I dismiss this appeal with costs.