1. ' This appeal calls in question the order passed by the learned VIIIth Rent Controller (South), Karachi, dated 24-4-1986, ordering issuance of writ of ejectment against the appellant.
2. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondents are landlords of a single storey building situated on Plot No,W.0.6/12 Water Course Road, Karachi and the appellant is a tenant in respect of tenements Nos.22 and 23 of the said building on monthly rent of Rs,139. In 1968 the respondents filed ejectment application against the appellant bearing No,R.C.2415/68 but the same was dismissed. An appeal bearing No,23/77 was filed by the respondent which was also dismissed by the subordinate Appellate Court. Thereafter the respondents filed Second Rent Appeal bearing No,8/83 before this Court. The appellant's Advocate remained absent during hearing of the case with the result that the appeal was heard in absence of the appellant's counsel and by judgment, dated 3-9-1984, the appeal of the respondents was allowed and the appellant was ordered to be ejected from the premises in question. However, the appellant was granted three months' time to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for review before this Court which was disposed of by order, dated 15-4-1985.
3. ' In review proceedings one of the grounds taken by the appellant was that the approval in respect of the building plans granted by the Karachi Building Authority stood suspended with effect from 7- 4-1984 under regulations issued by the said authority, as such there was no approval in respect of the building plan. As against this, contention was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Building Control Authority had once again approved the Building Plan on 5-2-1985. As the respective contentions raised by the counsel required further investigation, this Court in its order, dated 15-4-1985, while upholding its judgment earlier passed in the case left the question in regard to approval of the plan to be determined by the learned Controller in the execution proceedings and further observed that the learned Controller would be competent to execute the order of ejectment only if evidence was produced in respect of fresh approval of the building plans.
4. ' Thereafter, the respondents filed execution application before the learned Controller on 1-7-1985.
5. The appellant filed objections wherein the attention of the learned Controller was drawn to the order of this Court, dated 15-4-1985, but the learned Controller, it seems, refused to allow the parties to adduce fresh evidence on the point of re-approval of building plans and issued a writ of ejectment against the appellant. The appellant then filed appeal against the order of the learned Controller being F.R.A. No,94 of 1986 which was allowed by consent of the parties and the case was remanded to the learned Controller for recording evidence on the point. The appellant then examined three witnesses but no evidence was adduced by the respondents. Thereafter, the learned Controller after considering the respective contentions of the parties passed the impugned order directing the issuance of writ of ejectment in favour of the respondents and hence the appeal.
6. ' I have heard Mr. Haziqul Khairi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Iqbal Kazi, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. ' The main contentions raised by Mr. Khairi are that there was no final order in favour of the respondents, therefore, no execution proceedings could be filed by them and secondly, that the approval granted by the Building Control Authority, dated 6-7-1985 on the basis of which writ of ejectment had been ordered to be issued by the learned Controller contained a condition the approval granted to the respondents would not entitle them to eject the tenants, therefore, the learned Controller committed a great error while issuing writ of ejectment against the appellant.
8. The contention of Mr. Iqbal Kazi, however, was that as far as the question of ejectment of the appellant was concerned, the same stood finally determined by the order of this Court, dated 15-4- 1985. As to the approval of Building Plan granted by the Building ontrol Authority, the contention of Mr. Kazi was that once the plan was re-approved the learned Controller rightly refused to go into the conditions attached to the re-approval.
9. ' I find that both the contentions raised by Mr. Khairi have no force. His first contention that there was no final order yet in favour of the respondents is not tenable as the order passed by this Court, on 15-4-1985 clearly indicates that the question of grant of ejectment in favour of the respondents stood finally determined by the said order. This, order was passed on the review application filed by the appellant against judgment of this Court, dated 3-9-1984 whereby the ejectment of the appellant had earlier been ordered. In the order, dated 15-4-1985 it was clearly observed that this Court had no power to review its order passed in appeal filed under the provisions of Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. However, since a controversy had been raised in regard to the validity of approval granted by the Building Control Authority in respect of building plans, it was left to the learned Controller to execute the order of ejectment after taking evidence in this regard. The evidence was finally recorded by the learned Controller in respect of the re-approval of building plans and after being satisfied on the point the Controller issued writ of ejectment. The contention of Mr. Khairi that there was no final order in favour of the respondents which could be executed by the learned Controller, therefore, is devoid of any force and the order of this Court, dated 15-4-1985 could definitely be executed by the learned Controller. The first contention of Mr. Khairi, therefore, cannot be accepted.
10. ' Turning to the second contention, it has been argued that condition No,4 contained in the approval order passed by the Building Control Authority disentitled the respondents from obtaining ejectment order in their favour. The contention of the learned counsel also appears to be without force as pointed out earlier. The requirement of section 15(2)(vi) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance only is that a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of re-construction or erection of a new building must obtain necessary sanction for such re-construction or erection from the competent authority. The competent authority did grant such permission as contemplated by the said provisions of the Rent Ordinance but at the same time, the authority attached a condition saying that the permission would not entitle the owner of the building to eject the tenants. Mr. Khairi has contended that in view of such condition there was no valid approval in favour of the respondents in respect of re-construction of the building. This argument is hardly tenable as the learned Controller in the execution proceedings was not competent to decide such issues. As the order of this Court only cast a duty on the learned Controller to order ejectment if after taking evidence, he came to the conclusion that fresh approval had been granted to the appellant, and since fresh approval had in fact been granted to the respondents by the competent authority, the learned Controller was not competent to go into the question whether the approval granted in view of the conditions attached thereto constituted proper approval or not. I, therefore, find no force in this contention as well.
11. ' For the aforesaid reasons this appeal was dismissed by a short order, dated 8-9-1986. The appellant is however, granted three months' time to be reckoned from 8-9-1986, to vacate the premises and execution pending before the learned Controller shall follow without any further notice to the other side.