MANGAT RAM Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This execution second appeal has arisen out of an ejectment application filed by the landlord as far back as 1958. Ultimately the landlord got the order of ejectment from the High Court in revision filed by him vide order, dated 22nd of September, 1961. The High Court gave two months' time to the tenant to put the landlord in possession. The tenant not having done so, the landlord took out execution proceedings. The judgment -debtor raised the plea of a fresh tenancy having been created, but the objection was dismissed. Later, he took up another objection that he could not be dispossessed because he had set up some machinery. That objection was also dismissed by the executing Court. The judgment -debtor's appeal also failed. When the decree -holder sought police help, another objection was taken that a compromise had been reached. A number of witnesses were examined, and ultimately the trial Court held that this plea was false and it dismissed the objection burdening the objector with special costs amounting to Rs. 225. An appeal was taken to the District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of the executing Court that there was no compromise, that the objection taken was false and frivolous and that the special costs awarded were not unreasonable. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, raised what he called a legal objection that under Sec. 17 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. 3 of 1949), only an order made under Sec. 10, or Sec. 13, and an order passed on appeal under Sec. 15 is executable by a Civil Court, and that inasmuch as the present final order which is sought to be executed was passed by the High Court in revision the same was not executable by a Civil Court. This found favour with the Additional District Judge and he accepted the appeal and dismissed the execution application. The landlord has come to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) It has to be noted that originally Sec. 15 only provided an appeal to the appellate authority. No revision was provided. Anybody aggrieved by an order of the appellate authority could come to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for the appellate order to be revised. So long as the position stood like that, it could have been urged, possibly with some force, that Sec. 17 only provided for execution of an appellate order as provided in Sec. 15, by a Civil Court and that an order under Article 227 of the Constitution, which by no stretch of imagination could be said to be under Sec. 15] of the Act, was not executable by a Civil Court. However, there is no reported case in which such an objection was taken. By Punjab Act 29 of 1956, Sub -section (5) was added to Sec. 15 as follows:

(3.) In view of the above I have no hesitation in my mind to hold that the words "every order passed on appeal under Sec. 15" as used in Sec. 17 of the Act are comprehensive enough to include every order passed by the High Court under Sub -section (5) of Sec. 15.