' This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) is against the order, dated 25th November, 1981 of the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad passed Execution Application No,67 of 1980.
' The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as under:-
1. The respondent is transferee of House No,D-1262, situated in Sehwani Lane, Hyderabad by the Settlement Authorities vide P.T.O., dated 12th December,1959 and P.T.D. Dated 27th September,1963. According, to the respondent, the appellant was in possession of one room of the aforesaid house and, therefore, the respondent gave him notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1958, on 24th March,1964. The appellant however, did not pay rent and as the respondent also required the aforesaid room for his bona fide personal use he filed Rent Application No,412 of 1965 for ejectment of the appellant in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The appellant in his written statement had raised the plea that the room in his occupation was not part of House No,0-1262 and, therefore, denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and him.
2. The Joint Civil Judge and Rent Controller, framed a preliminary issue regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; and after holding the enquiry and recording evidence decided the issue in favour of the respondent. On 16th April,1974 the appellant filed Appeal No,18 of 1974 before the District Judge, Hyderabad who relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kandawala & Co. Ltd. v. Sheikh Rashiduddin and another 1969 SCMR 720 dismissed the appeal holding that appeal did not lie against the order of Rent Controller, holding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Against the aforesaid decision of the District Judge the appellant filed Second Appeal in the High Court but the same was dismissed as his counsel conceded that the appeal had become infructuous in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ibrahim v. Mohammad Hussain P L 1975 SC 457.
3. After the decision of the preliminary issue referred to above the Rent Controller settled the issues with regard to default in payment of rent and the personal bona fide need of the landlord both of which were decided by his order, dated 20th September, 1976 in favour of the landlord (respondent herein). Again the appellant filed appeal before the District Judge, Hyderabad who allowed the same by his judgment, dated 26th September,1977 holding that the preliminary issue already decided could be agitated before him in appeal and after perusal of orders of the Settlement Authorities came to the conclusion that occupants of C.S. Nos. 1261 and 1262 had genuine doubt about boundaries of the properties actually transferred to them and that .The evidence led by them did not resolve the main point whether the premises occupied by the tenant did or did not form part of the property of the landlord and further observed that if so advised civil Court should be approached to decide the question whether the room in dispute is part of property bearing No,D-1262. He, therefore, set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 20th September, 1976.
4. Against the aforesaid judgment of District Judge the landlord (respondent herein) filed Second Appeal No,208 of 1977 before this Court which was District Judge, Hyderabad dated 26th September, 1977 was without jurisdiction and it was set aside and the order of the learned Rent Controller, dated 20th September,1976 was maintained. The reasons which were stated in the judgment were that the decision of the learned District Judge, Hyderabad amounted to sitting in judgment over the previous finding on the preliminary issue given by the Rent Controller, in appeal by the predecessor of the learned District Judge, and the High Court in second appeal holding that no appeal against the decision of the preliminary issues could lie to the District Judge under section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. It was further observed that the question with regard to the title to the room in dispute could not be decided in proceedings before the Rent Controller or in appeal from decision of Rent Controller.
5. It was with regard to the observation of the learned District Judge in the impugned judgment with regard to uncertainty of title that this Court made the observation that it was for the tenant if so advised to seek remedy before proper forum. Long before 10th May,1980, the date of the aforesaid judgment of this Court the Evacuee Property and Displaced Laws stood repealed by Act XIV of 1975. The observation regarding decision of title being sought if advised before proper forum could not by any stretch of imagination even be considered in the nature of remand for decision to Settlement Authorities.
6. With regard to the order of the learned IIIrd Civil Judge and Rent Controller rejecting the objection of the appellant, which is impugned in the instant appeal the provisions of section 22 of the Ordinance make it clear that the Controller has to execute the orders made by him or the Appellate Authority and he has no further powers of going behind the orders to be executed.
' There is no weight in this appeal which is dismissed however, with no orders as to costs.