1. ' This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order, dated 28-10-1985 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (South), Karachi, whereby the learned Rent Controller rejected the objections filed by the appellant and thereby directed issuance of writ of possession.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondents is landlady of Shop No,70-A, Super Market Building, Saddar Co-operative Market, Karachi. The appellant is tenant in respect thereof. The respondent filed Eviction Case No,2473 of 1976 on the ground of default with effect from September, 1975 till date of the filing of the eviction application. The appellant filed the written statement. On 31-1 1977 the respondent filed the rent account. On 26-11-1976 the appellant filed his own rent account. The rent order was passed on 9-9-1978 and the learned Rent Controller directed the appellant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs,200 per month with effect from September, 1975 to August, 1978 amounting to Rs,7,200. He also directed the appellant to deposit the rent for the month of September, 1978 before 15th October, 1976 and so on. The respondent filed an application under section 13(6) of the repealed Ordinance, 1959 on 6-2-1978 stating therein that the appellant committed default in the payment of rent and as per Nazir's report he had not deposited any rent till 26-11-1978. On 9-1-1979 the learned Rent Controller allowed the application and directed the appellant to put the respondent into peaceful vacant possession within two months from the date thereof. As the appellant did not vacate the premises, the respondent filed Execution Application No, 26 of 1979. The appellant filed objections under section 47 read with section 151, C.P.'C. It seems that the respondent filed Constitution Petition No,D-1023 of 1982 in this Court on 27 3-1984. A Division Bench of this Court of which undersigned was the Member passed judgment on 27-3-1974. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- "In the circumstances, the order of the cancellation of the lease/ allotment of shop No,70-A in Saddar Co-operative Market from the name of the petitioner by the Project Manager is declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. All subsequent actions/orders pursuant to the order of cancellation of the allotment/lease are also declared to have been taken/passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. It is however, observed that this judgment does not debar any party from taking fresh action as may be permissible under the law including the reference of any dispute to arbitration if provided by a valid existing agreement."
3. ' The appellant filed petition for leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also refused.
4. ' The learned Rent Controller after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties over-ruled the objections filed by the appellant and ordered issuance of writ of possession.
5. ' The appellant being aggrieved against the above order has filed this First Rent Appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo. Of appeal.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case and the impugned order.
7. ' It seems that, the shop in dispute was originally allotted to one Muhammad Ismail. The said Muhammad Ismail transferred the shop in dispute to the respondent. She served the notice on the appellant. The appellant sent a reply. The appellant made an application before the Deputy Secretary Labour and Director Co-operative Development Food and Project, Saddar Co-operative Market, Karachi, for allotment of the disputed shop in his favour. The Deputy Secretary issued a show-cause notice to the respondent and thereafter, cancelled the allotment order in her favour.
8. After cancelling the allotment, the shop in dispute was allotted to the appellant, the respondent challenged that order in Constitution Petition No,D-1023 of 1982 in this Court. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the petition and declared the impugned order as without lawful authority. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended .That the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller is not in accordance with law. Mr. Muhammad Ali Sheikh has drawn my attention to the case of Messrs Bambino Ltd. v. Messrs Selmer International Ltd. And another PLD 1983 SC 155 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal laid down the following dictum:- "In regard to the first contention, learned counsel referred us to the provisions of section 20 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and submitted that since specified powers relating to summoning of witnesses, compelling production of documents, inspecting the site and issuing commission for examination of witnesses, vesting in civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, have been conferred upon the Controller and the appellate authority, it follows by necessary implication that the rest of the powers enjoyed by a civil Court were not available to these authorities under the repealed enactment i.e. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (vide section 16) was identical and the settled view in this Court has been that although the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable in terms to proceedings before the Rent Controller by its own force, the Rent Controller was free to follow the equitable principles contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no reason, therefore, to take a different view so far as the provisions of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance are concerned, which governed the proceedings for execution of the order in this case. Under the repealed Ordinance of 1959, the order passed by the Controller or in appeal by the appellate authority was to be executed under section 17 of the said Ordinance, by a civil Court having jurisdiction in the area as if it were a decree of that Court. However, under section 22 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and order passed by the Controller by the appellate authority has to be executed in such manner as may be determined by the Controller or as the case may be, the appellate authority. Plainly, therefore, the Controller was competent to adopt any procedure deemed b him suitable for the purpose of execution of his order. Order XXI, rules 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure ample authorised an executing. Court for investigating and adjudication upon the matter of dispossession from immovable property be the holder of a decree for possession of such property of a person, other than the judgment-debtor."
9. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Suprem Court I am of the view that the impugned order is not in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Rent Controller for deciding the same in accordance with law.