1. ' This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order dated 18-3-1980 passed by the 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application under section 47, C.P.C. filed by the appellant.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed Execution Application No, 6 of 1980 for Execution of order passed in Rent Case No, 1064 of 1968 in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi. The appellant filed an application under section 17, C.P.C. It was amongst others averred that the learned Civil Judge has no juris diction to entertain the Execution Application. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties overruled the objections filed by the appellant and ordered issuance of writ of possession by order, dated 18-3- 1980.
3. ' The appellant being aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 18-3-1980 has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the Memo. of Appeal.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Hussain Memon the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned First Senior Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain Execution Application No, 6 of 1980.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. I.M. Patel learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the Execution Application was rightly presented in the Court of First Senior Civil Judge, Karachi who has jurisdiction to entertain the same. By an order, dated 20-12-1983 office was directed to enquire from the learned District Judge, Karachi, whether on 21-11-1979, 6-1-1980 and 18-3-1980 the First Senior Civil Judge, Sessions Judge, Karachi was working as Rent Controller. The learned District.
6. Judge on 9-1-1984 conveyed the following information which reads as under:- "On and from 27-10-1980 the 1st Senior Civil Judge as Rent Controller was given jurisdiction of Police Stations Korangi, Landhi and Quaidbad of Malir Division. On 21-11-1979 Mr. Jehangir S. Bhatti was also Rent Controller besides being 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi. He continued to be Rent Controller on 6-1-1980 and 18-3-1980."
7. ' Section 2(b) of the Ordinance (Ord. XVII of 1979) hereinafter called the Ordinance, defines the word "Controller" means a Controller appointed under section 4 and includes a person working as Controller,, immediately before coming into force of the said Ordinance.
8. ' Section 4 provides that Government may appoint one or more Controllers in any district and if more than one Controller is appointed in the same district. Government shall define the local limits within which each of such Controller shall exercise jurisdiction. Proviso to section 4 provides that the person working as controllers shall continue to exercise their respective territorial jurisdiction until it has been altered by Government.
9. ' The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the point that on the relevant date Rent Controller was First Class Senior Civil Judge. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that First Class Senior Civil Judge was competent to exercise powers of Rent Controller by virtue of the revisions of section 4 of the said Ordinance.
10. ' It is advantageous to reproduce sections 22, 27(3) and (4) of the said Ordinance which reads as under:- "An order made by the Controller or the appellate authority shall be executed in such manner as may be determined by the Controller or, as the case may be, the appellate authority.
11. "All other cases instituted under the Ordinance mentioned in subsection (1) and which immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance were pending before a Controller shall, not - withstanding any orders made otherwise by the Controller be continued and disposed in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and any proceeding's taken or orders made in any such cases as aforesaid shall for all purposes have effect (#s proceedings taken or orders made under this Ordinance.
12. "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) all orders made in pursuance thereof and any order made under the Ordinance mentioned in subsection (1) in any proceedings before the commencement of this Ordinance shall be deemed to have effect as an order under this Ordinance and be executed in accordance with the provisions of section 22."
13. ' The Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was promulgated on 21st November, 1979. Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was repealed by the provision of section 27(1) of the said Ordinance. Section 27(2) provides that all appeals and such cases before a Controller as are fixed for argument or judgment which have been filed under the Ordinance mentioned in subsection (1) shall, notwithstanding the repeal thereof be disposed of in accordance with the said Ordinance. It is, therefore, apparent that there were no specific provisions with regard to matter before the executing Civil Court under section 17 of the repealed Ordinance. Section 22 of the said Ordinance provides that an order made by the Controller or the appellate authority shall be executed in such manner as may be determined by the Controller, as the case may be, the appellate authority.
14. ' Section 27 was further amended by the Sind Rent Amendment Ordinance, 1980 which was published on 21-1-1980 and after subsection (2) new subsections (3) and (4) were added to the section. It came into force at once and further provided that it be deemed to have taken effect from 21-1-1979. Subsection (4) of section 27 provides that notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) all orders made in pursuance thereof and order made under the Ordinance mentioned in subsection (1) in any proceedings before the commencement of this Ordinance shall be deemed to have effect as an order under this Ordinance and be executed in accordance with the provisions of section 22. It is significant to note that the impugned order of the 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, dated 19-3-1980 purports to be order of the Rent Controller and not a Civil Court executing the order of the Rent Controller.
15. ' A reading of the enquiry report dated 9-1-1980 of the learned District Judge, Karachi, will show that Jehangir S. Bhatti was exercising powers of the Rent Controller on the relevant date when the Execution Application was presented in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Karachi. The conclusion is that on 6-1-1980 when the Execution Application was presented by the respondent the learned 1st Senior Civil Judge was exercising powers of the Rent Controller. I am of the view that the execution application was presented by the respondent in the Court of First Senior Civil Judge who was exercising powers of Rent Controller and the learned Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain the said application.
16. In view of the above finding the learned 1st Senior Civil Judge has the authority to decide or power to entertain execution application and the Court has jurisdiction to entertain it. I accordingly, hold that the learned Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain the execution application. The appeal is, therefore, rejected but there will be no order as to costs.
17. Appeal rejected.