By this First Rent Appeal the appellant Muhammad Bashir has challenged the order, dated 3-3- 1986 of VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (South) Karachi, whereby the execution has been ordered against him in pursuance of the finality of the rent case.
2. The facts are that the appellant is the tenant of shop, situated on Plot No. K-13B-43S-2. Tennary Road, Rangiwara, Karachi. The respondent Saudagar Khan filed rent case on the grounds of default and personal requirement. The application of respondent was allowed by the Rent Controller and appellant filed F.RA No. 104 of 1980, which was dismissed. He then went to the Supreme Court and Special Leave to Appeal was declined, therefore, the execution application was filed before the Rent Controller by the respondent.
3. The appellant during the execution proceedings, filed application under Order 21, Rules, 97, 98 and 99 of C.P.C. The same was dismissed by the Rent Controller by an order, dated 5th February, 1986. The appellant again filed F.RA. No.57 of 1986 against the order of the Rent Controller by which the application of the appellant was dismissed. The High Court in its order, dated 10-2-1986 ordered as under:- "The matter has gone to the Supreme Court and the appellant has also lost their case there. 1984 CLC 2735 is distinguishable. The only direction that can be given at this stage is that the Rent Controller should see to it that execution takes place only in respect of the property in respect of which the ejectment application had been filed and the ejectment order has been passed."
Subject to this observation F.RA. No.57 of 1986 was dismissed. C.MA. No.187. Of 1986 for stay became infructuous and was dismissed as such. The Rent Controller by impugned order allowed the execution application and put the respondent into possession. The appellant once again has challenged this order by way of this First Rent Appeal.
4. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, appearing for the appellant, has argued at length and his main contention is that entire property, for which execution has been allowed, does not belong to the respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel that property NoAK-13B-43S-4/A. Tennary Road, Karachi, is the property of the appellant for which execution application is not competent. He has referred to the cases reported in 1986 MLD 2997, 1986 CLC 2600, 1986CLC2735andPLD1983SC155.
Mr. Muhammad Umer Qureshi, appearing for the respondent, submitted that appellant has dragged this case since 1980 and even lost in the Supreme Court. It is argued that nowhere before the Rent Controller, the appellant has produced any document showing that he is the owner of the Property No-AK-13B-43S-4/A. It is contended that one PT-1 was obtained fraudulently by appellant on 11-3-1980 and on basis of that document, he claims the possession. Mr. Umer Qureshi has referred to PLD 1986 Kar. 206 and submitted that C.P.C. Is not applicable in these cases. The dispute has finally been settled and ejectment order has reached to the finality in respect of the property bearing NO.K-13B-43S-2, Tennary Road, Rangiwara, Karachi. The only dispute is in respect of the execution. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that execution has taken place in respect of his own plot bearing No. AK-1313-43S-4/A. This Court by judgment dated 16-2-1986 in F.RA. No. 57 of 1986 has given the direction that the Rent Controller should see that execution takes place only in respect of the property for which ejectment had been ordered, The Rent Controller inspected the site on 26-2-1986 and came to the conclusion that the hotel, facing Tennary Road, is not subject-matter of this case and that a small road Karam Khan is adjacent to the cabin. He accordingly issued writ of possession and held that objections of the appellant are absolutely frivolous, vexatious and is unnecessary resisting the execution. During the pendency of the execution application, the respondent on 17-2-1986 filed the application for site inspection in which it is alleged that appellant, in order to defeat the execution proceedings, has started raising the partition wall within the disputed premises with mala fide intention as such that application was allowed. It may be noted that since 1980 till the termination of the proceedings, the appellant has never taken the plea that adjacent to the disputed Plot, there is another Plot having No. AK-13B- P-43S-4/A, which belongs to him. The only document, which is being relied upon, is a Form PT-I, issued by the Excise & Taxation A Division, Karachi, which is an assessment of the tax on the request of application filed on 11-3-1986 even after filing this First Rent Appeal. This, according to my view, subject to the other legal right During parties at this stage, cannot give a right of ownership to the appellant. During the course of argument I was informed that matter was taken up in the Civil Court too. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and, accordingly it is dismissed with costs.