' An ejectment petition brought by respondent No.1, against respondent No,2, was allowed by the Rent Controller. In the course of execution proceedings, the petitioners filed objections inter alia on the ground that the property in dispute belongs to them. However, in view of the amendment of section 17 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, by section 6 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Ordinance, 1979, whereby the forum 'civil Court' empowered to execute the ejectment order, has been substituted by the Rent Controller, the objection-petition was not entertained. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, referred to my unreported decision given in C.R.816/82 and declined to intervene. Accordingly, the petitioners' appeal was dismissed on 23-7- 1983. They have now invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examine the record. The only point to be adjudicated upon, in this writ petition is, as to whether after the amendment of section 17, an objection-petition under Order XXI, rule 100, C.P.C. is competent before a RentA Controller, by a person other than the judgment-debtor, not bound b the ejectment-order. This issue was dealt with by me in detail in my judgment, dated 12-7-1984, in the case of Mst. Gulzar Begum v. Riaz Malik, etc. in Writ Petition No.3624 of 1983 NLR 1984 Civil 800 and it was held that such objection petition does not lie.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has been confronted with the said decision. He, however, relies upon Quality Steel Corporation v. Ch. Muhammad Tufail 1984 CLC 2255 in which another Single Bench of this Court has maintained that even after the amendment of section 17, an objection petition is competent. But from the perusal of this report I find that the case was not argued before the learned Single Judge, from the angle as was done in the case of Gulzar Begum. I have not been, therefore, persuaded to differ with the view already taken by me in Gulzar Begum's case.
4. Needless to mention that the petitioners have already filed civil suit and are, thus, seeking an alternative remedy. This would an additional ground for dismissing the instant writ petition.
5. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is dismissed, bu with no order as to costs.
Writ refused.