A.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) THIS petition raises a short point upon the construction of Section 13, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
(2.) IT appears that a certain shop situate in the city of Ludhiana was let out on rent to Amar Nath Petitioner on 22 -2 -1944. On 11 -8 -1948 Nathu Ram, who is the owner of the shop, obtained an order from the Rent Controller for the ejectment of the tenant under the provisions of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, which was enacted by the Governor of the Punjab under Section 93, Government of India Act, 1935. On 20 -12 -1948, he filed an application for the execution of the said order under the provisions of Section 17 of the said Act. While this application was being dealt with by the executing. Court the Provincial Legislature enacted a new measure entitled the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which re -enacted in substantially the same language the provisions of the Act of 1947. The tenant immediately raised an objection before the executing Court that by the provisions of Section 13 of the later Act it was not within the competence of the executing Court to continue with the proceedings of ejectment. This contention was overruled by the executing Court and the decision of the executing Court was upheld by the learned District Judge in appeal. The tenant has come to this Court in second appeal and the question for this Court is whether the Courts below have come to a correct determination in point of law. Sub -section (1) of Section 13, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947, is in the following terms: A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evieted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section. Section 17 provides that every order made under Section 10, or Section 13 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 that Court.
(3.) TWO questions require determination in the present case. The first is whether an order passed by a controller in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act of 1947 can be said to be a "decree" within the meaning of the expression as used in Section 13 of the Act of 1949 and the second whether an order passed by a Controller in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 10 or 13 of the Act of 1947 can be deemed to be an order passed in exercise of the power conferred by the Act of 1949, which can be executed by a civil Court as if it were a decree of that Court.;