Hamid Farooq and others being decree-holders in Case No,67/RC decided on 21-7-1986 filed an execution petition which was resisted by the judgment-debtor Abdul Jalil on ground of limitation.
The two Courts below overruled the objection on 16-9-1991 and 23-11-1993 respectively and hence this revision by the judgment-debtor on the grounds of limitation as well as on the ground that the landlord refused to deliver repossession despite having achieved ejectment on ground of reconstruction.
2. From the copy of original execution petition it appears that apparently the execution filed on 9- 4-1990 was time-barred in relation to the date of decree as 21-7-1986 but the fact is that the tenant had gone in appeal which according to the judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Peshawar, was decided on 14-5-1987. The limitation for the submission of execution petition always starts from the date of final decree in case the appeal is filed and not from the date of original decree. Computing therefrom, the landlord could file execution on or before 13-5-1990 which is perfectly within time.
3. The fact that the tenant should be re-inducted into the suit premises is also invalid because his ejectment order was not on the sole ground of reconstruction but on the ground of default in payment of rent as well. This does not entitle him to re-delivery of possession because leaving aside the question of re-construction, he was otherwise liable to ejectment on ground of default that carries away with it the claimed concession.
4. When the ejectment of a tenant is ordered on ground of default in payment of rent as well, he cannot claim redelivery of possession simply because the landlord had taken plea of reconstruction and the ejectment included that ground as well. In case it is so done, the factum of proved default, in the circumstances, would go unaccounted for.