1. I am of the opinion that the learned District Judge was in error in passing an order for delivery of possession of the rebuilt building to the tenant who was in possession before the property was rebuilt.
2. Nanki was the original landlord and she applied for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that she wanted the building for rebuilding, and this matter falls within Section 13(3) (a) (iii), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. A compromise was entered into on 28th November 1949 by which the tenant agreed to vacate the shop on the condition that he 'will be entitled to get it on fair rent from the landlord after she had rebuilt. The shop was rebuilt and the tenant applied for execution of the decree and prayed for possession being given to him.
3. The application for restoration of possession was dismissed by Mr. Augustine, Subordinate Judge, on 24th April 1951. On appeal being taken to the District Judge, he held that this decree was executable as a decree of Court, and, therefore, he ordered that possession be' given to the tenant. The landlord has come up in appeal to' this Court.
4. In -- 'Nathu Ram v. Ram Partap', 53 Pun L R 90, I had occasion to deal with a case such as this and there I held that Section 13(4), East Punjab Rent Restriction Act applies where the landlord has got possession of the premises for the purpose of keeping them for himself and does not do so, but rents them out to some other persons or puts them to use for any purpose other than for what eviction had been ordered and I also held that the Act does not give to the Rent Controller any power to order possession being given after the property had been rebuilt. I am still of the same opinion, and, therefore, the compromise, which was entered into before the Rent Controller, was beyond the powers of the Rent Controller, because it is not within the jurisdiction of that authority to order possession being given after a building has been rebuilt. Therefore, whether the order of the Controller amounts to a decree which is executable as a decree of the Civil Court or not, the original order was beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, and, therefore, cannot be executed. As a matter of fact, this case falls within the rule laid down by me in -- Nathu Ram v. Ram Partap', 53 Pun LR 90.
5. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of Mr. Augustine, dated 23rd April 1951.
6. As there is no appearance for the opposite party, there will be no order as to costs of this appeal.