The instant petition as also Writ Petition No,6146 of 2000, are being disposed of together, as both involve common question of law and facts.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner filed two independent ejectment applications, against the respondent, interalia on the ground of default; respondent contested these applications; however, admitting the relationship of tenancy. Learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 2-5-1996, passed tentative order under section 13(6), for the deposit of the arrears of rent and also for the future rent in the Court. Subsequently, respondent failed to comply with the order. Their defence was struck off and ejectment orders have been passed. Respondents preferred an appeal and also approached this Court. but without an success. Thereafter, respondent voluntarily surrendered the possession to the petitioners, but the petitioner filed execution applKation for the recovery of the. arrears of the rent, which learned Rent Controller, had directed the respondent to deposit, in terms of the order dated 2;3-1986. This execution application was resisted by the petitioner through filing objections, which was dismissed but in appeal, against the said order. Learned Appellate Court, has allowed the objection and dismissed the execution application of the petitioner. Hence these petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order under section 13(6) is executable, as a money decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. Reliance in this behalf, has been placed upon the case reported as Ghulam Rasool v. Said-Rasool etc. (PLD 1990 Lahore 457) to contends that the order under section 13(6) is executable.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the provisions of section 13(6), have two parts; first part is regarding tentative assessment of the rent and a direction to the tenant to deposit arrears and future rent till the final determination made by the learned Rent Controller, in terms of the second part. The non-compliance of such order entails the striking off the tenant's defence and his ejectment forthwith but such tentative order, cannot be got executed to recover the amount. It is only, if the rent Controller finally determines the amount of rent, due from the tenant under second part and directs that same be paid to the landlord, subject to the adjustment of earlier amount, which tenant has deposited, in terms of the first part, the order is executable. In the instant case, as has been mentioned in the narration of facts the stage for determination of the final amount of rent, due to the petitioner, did not arise and the proceedings terminated on account of noncompliance of the respondent, under first part of section 13(6), resultantly, such tentative order, was never an order, which could be executed through the Court.
In the light of above, the orders of the learned Appellate Court, impugned before this Court, are not the result of any illegality or error of jurisdiction, calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction. These petitions thus have no force and the same are hereby dismissed.