' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 10-2-1986 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he set aside the order dated 3-10-1983 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the objection petition filed by respondent No,1 and directed the learned Rent Controller to proceed with the execution petition in accordance with law.
2. The background of the case is that respondent No,1 filed an Ejectment Petition No,126/2 of 1978 dated 11-10-1978 against the present petitioner and one Nazir Ahmad son of Muhammad Hussain for eviction from property No,Ist Floor of S-36-R-15, Railway Road, Gowalmandi, Lahore on the ground that he was transferred the property in dispute on the basis of Provisional Transfer Order No,31776 dated 24-11-1959 and Transfer Order No,49955 dated 21-6-1976; Nazir Ahmad after service of notice dated 18-12-1977 under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rahabilitation) Act, 1958, made default in the payment of rent since December, 1974 and sublet the property to lmdad Ali petitioner herein.
3. On 13-1-1979, Mr. A.R. Arshad, learned counsel for respondent No,1 herein, made a statement that he wanted to delete the name of petitioner herein, in that, he was a sub-tenant. Consequently, his name was struck off by the learned Rent Controller by order dated 30-1-1979. On the same day without recording evidence, the learned Rent Controller passed ex parte order against Nazir Ahmad (not impleaded as party in these proceedings) and directed him to vacate the premises forthwith.
The said Nazir Ahmad failed to challenge the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller. Thereafter respondent No,1 filed the execution application before the learned Rent Controller on 8-2-1981. A Bailiff was deputed to cause eviction of said Nazir Ahmad which was resisted by the petitioner herein, who filed an application on 9-2-1981 for setting aside the ex parte decree of ejectment, which was, however, dismissed. This order has not been placed on record and the learned counsel for parties are unable to give the date of rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree of ejectment against Nazir Ahmad. However, on 25-3-1981, the petitioner filed an objection petition to the execution proceedings filed by respondent No,1 which was resisted by the latter. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the issue "Whether Nazir Ahmad was not in possession of the suit property at the time of decree, if so, what was the status Of objector and its effect; (OPP) The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 3-10- 1983 recorded a finding of fact that the property in dispute was transferred to respondent No,1 who failed to give any notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and Section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has attained the status of a tenant because he had been in possession of the disputed property at the relevant time.
3. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide order dated 10-2-196 set aside the order of learned Rent Controller and dismissed the objection petition on the ground of non- maintainability, in view of amendment in section 17 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance by the Punjab Ordinance IX of 1979 which provides that the order passed by the Rent Controller under sections 10, 13, 13-8 and 15 are executed by the Rent Controller who while executing the ejectment order under section 17 acts as a special tribunal and not as a Civil Court.
4. Mr. Hamid Mukhtar, learned counsel for respondent No,1 frankly stated that the controversy raised in this petition is settled by the judgment of Supreme Court in Muhammad Yasin v. Sheikh Ghulam Murtaza and another (PLD 19:: SC 163), wherein it was held that the Rent Controller will have the power to execute the order as a decree of the Civil Court and also to decide objection to the order and to its executability." The operative part reads thus:- ' A Controller has no power or control over a decree of a Civil Court except for this deeming provision, where a power to execute an order in the manner of a decree of a Civil Court is conferred then on the ordinary rule of interpretation all the powers necessary or enjoyed by the executing authority for effectively and completely executing a decree of a Civil Court shall be available to the Controller. The deeming cannot stop short or boggle. To hold that the Controller will have the power to execute the order as a decree of the Civil Court but will have no power to decide the objections to the order, and to its executability will amount to in fact denying the Controller the very power to execute the decree itself. Such cannot be the result or the effect of the deeming close. It has to be given full effect and the logical consequence of the empowering provision must follow."
5. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in Muhammad Yasin (supra), the impugned orde1 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the appeal filed by respondent No,1, shall. Be deemed to be pending and the same shall be decided afresh in accordance with law. The learned District Judge, Lahore shall hear the appeal himself or entrust it to some Additional District Judge. The appeal shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Lahore on 12-3-1991. To this extent the writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs.