' Habibullah respondent herein is transferee of residential premises bearing Municipal Nos. 10-1/34 and 10-1/35 situated on Ashram Road, Quetta which was formerly evacuee property. The said premises was in the occupation of Jalal Khan appellant herein as tenant. After the transfer in his favour the respondent filed ejectment application against the appellant on 2-12-1968 in the Court of the Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Quetta. The defence of the appellant was struck off for non- deposit of arrears of rent by the Rent Controller on 13-2-1974 and order of ejectment was made against him. The appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed on 28-3- 1974 and second appeal to the High Court was also dismissed on 13-6-1977. The respondent herein filed execution application before the Rent Controller on 4-7-1977 and warrants of execution were issued on 5-7-1977 and the order of ejectment was satisfied on 10-8-1977 regarding the aforesaid premises. However on 16-12-1982 the respondent herein filed another execution application praying for possession of the courtyard of the aforesaid two houses. The plea of the appellant in the second execution application was that the respondent had not been transferred any courtyard alongwith both the suit houses and in so far as the second execution application was concerned that was misconstrued as the order of ejectment had already been satisfied in the first execution application. This objection was not acceded to by the learned Rent Controller and he proceeded with the execution proceedings whereupon the appellant filed a revision petition before the District Judge, Quetta under Section 115, C.P.C. And finding the same incompetent made a request for withdrawal of the same on 30-8-1986 and the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 10-9-1986. Thereafter the learned Rent Controller again directed the execution proceedings to commence vide order dated 11-2-1987 which has been challenged in the present appeal under section 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance"). The parties had been litigating in respect of the alleged courtyard in different forums even upto the High Court and the Supreme Court but those circumstances are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal which I intend to dispose of on a legal point without going into the merits of the case.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and have also been led through the record of the case by them. The simple question before me is whether this appeal is competent under section 15 of the Ordinance. According to original section 17 of the Ordinance every order of ejectment made by the Rent Controller was to be executed by a civil Court having jurisdiction in the area as if it was a decree granted by it. However, this section was substituted by Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 (Baluchistan Ordinance No.III of 1980) whereby every order made under section 10, section 13, section 13-B and every order passed in appeal under section 15 is to be executed by the Controller as if it was a decree of the civil Court.
This would mean that the Rent Controller when executing any order made under the aforesaid sections shall have all the powers of Civil. Court as are available to the latter in C.P.C. In regard to the execution of decrees. However, the question is if any party is aggrieved by any order made by the Rent Controller in the execution of the ejectment order would it have a right of appeal or not.
For that purpose we shall have to see the provisions of section 15 of the Ordinance. Section 15 lays down that any party aggrieved by an order of the Controller finally disposing of an application made under section 4, section 10, section 12 and section 13 of the Ordinance, may within 30 days of the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the High Court. This section also lays down that no appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order passed by the Controller. The minute perusal of the provisions of section 15 of the Ordinance would show that only those final orders are appealable which are made by the Controller under the aforesaid four sections and no more.
3. I have given my anxious thought to this aspect of the matter and I have come to the conclusion that in view of the provisions contained in section 15 of the Ordinance no appeal lies from any order made under section 17 of the Ordinance. The present appeal has definitely been made to challenge an order made by the Rent Controller in execution of the ejectment order under section 17 of the Ordinance and the same is not appealable.
4. For the foregoing reasons and without going into the merits of the case I will hold that the appeal is incompetent and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. The appellant is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute in the second execution application to the respondent within one month from today failing which the Rent Controller shall be at liberty to resume the execution proceedings against him.
5. The above are the reasons for my short order of even date.