1. ' This appeal is directed against the order dated 24-10-1984 of the IV Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby the objections of the appellant were rejected and the Execution application was allowed and writ of possession was issued.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is owner of two shops and an open space behind these shops near Chorangi Minis Bus Stop opposite Kamal Centre, New 'L' Block Sector II, Orangi Township, Karachi and the appellant is tenant in respect of these two shops at the monthly rent of Rs.150. The respondent filed Ejectment Application No.1471 of 1981 on the ground of default of rent since 1-2-1978. The appellant filed written statement and resisted the ejectment application.
3. The appellant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller by an order dated 1-9-1981 directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent from May, 1978 to September, 1981 amounting to Rs.6,150 as arrears on or before 2-10-1981 in Court. The appellant was also directed to deposit future monthly rent in Court on or before 10th of each month. The appellant instead of depositing the rent as directed filed an application under section 20 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act read with section 151. On the basis of this application operation of the order dated 1-9-1981 was stayed till disposal of his application dated 13-9-1981. On 12-2-1984 the application dated 13-9-1981 was dismissed. The respondent filed application under section 16 (2) of the S.R.P. Ordinance, 1979 which was allowed on 15-2-1984 and the appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of shops to the respondent within one month. It seems that the appellant did not vacate the premises as such the respondent filed Execution Application being No.5 of 1984 on 16-3-1984. The appellant filed objection inter alia that the respondent had not mentioned the Schedule of property against which the execution has been prayed. The respondent filed affidavit in reply to the objections.
4. ' The Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller after taking into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the objections and ordered issue of writ of possession by his order dated 24-10-1984.
5. ' The appellant abovenamed being aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 24-10-1984 has preferred this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal.
6. ' Mr.Sayed Azizul Hasnain, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent forcibly and illegally evicted the appellant from Plot No.468/11 which is the property of appellant's son Muhammad Shahid. He has also submitted that an application for restoration of possession on 7-11-1984 was filed by his son which is still pending in the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi.
7. ' On the other hand Mr. Faizanul Haq the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellant was evicted or dispossessed from the disputed property which belongs to the respondent and he was not dispossessed from the property of appellant's son.
8. ' I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel before me and have gone through the impugned order and also perused the record.
9. ' The grievance of the appellant is that he was dispossessed from premises bearing No.468/11, near Shaheed-e-Millat Chowk, Sector 11, Orangi Town, Karachi. It seems that the appellant's son has already filed application for restoration of possession on 7-11-1984 which is still pending.
10. 'It is a fundamental principle of law that an act of a Court should not injure any person. It is inherent in the general jurisdiction of the Court to act rightly and fairly according to the circumstances towards all parties involved.
11. ' The provisions of section 144, C.P.C. are very clear. Therefore, I direct the learned trial Court to hold inquiry, in accordance with the provisions of section 144, C.P.C.
12. ' For these reasons I direct that the learned trial Court shall decide the application dated 7-11-1984 after recording evidence of the parties including Muhammad Shahid and after hearing all the parties in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt of R & P from this Court.
13. ' The above appeal is disposed of in terms of the above judgment.