PADAM PARSHAD Vs. DIP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed as an execution second in this Court in consequence of an order of the learned District Judge at Ambala to the effect that the first appeal which was filed in his Court did not lie there but lay in the High Court.

(2.) The appeal arose out of an order of a Sub Judge dealing with objections filed by a tenant under Sections 47 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, against the execution of a decree for ejectment passed in favour of the landlord under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, Ill of 1949. The rent of the premises in dispute appears to be only Rs. 17 per mensem and therefore the jurisdictional value of the case based on one year's rent of the premises is nowhere near Rs. 5000 and in fact is only about Rs. 200. Section 15 of the Act empowered the Government by special order or notification to constitute, any officer as the Appellate Authority under the Act, and under the provisions of this section. District Judges generally have been made the Appellate Authorities in their Divisions. Section 17 deals with the execution of orders passed under the Act and provides that every order made under section 10 (which deals with interference by landlords with amenities enjoyed by tenants) section 13 (which deals with ejectment) and every order passed on appeal under section 15 shall be executed by a civil Court having jurisdiction in the area as if it were a decree of a Court.

(3.) In the present case the learned Sub Judge who was dealing with the execution of the order under section 13 as if it was an ordinary decree of a civil Court as provided by section 17, accepted the objections of the tenant and held that he could not be evicted as there had been a subsequent agreement between him and the landlord under which he was allowed to remain in occupation of the premises in dispute. Following the ordinary course the landlord filed it first appeal against this order in the Court of the District Judge, who appears to have taken a somewhat curious view. As far as I have been able to follow his reasoning he is of the opinion that the appeal is covered by section 39(1) (b) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not section 39(1) (a) because section 2((1) (a) does not apply to an order which is merely deemed or considered to be a decree. The provisions of section 39(1) read :