Mam Chajnd vs Sumat Prasad on 7 May, 1968
(20) Reliance is placed by the learned counsel in support of his arsliment on a judgment of D. Fa'.shaw C.J. in Shri Habibul Haq v. Shri Thakar Dass and antoher (1963 P.L.R. 649)0 where it was held that although it was permissible for the Competent Authority to make an interim order providing for a certain condition the final order must be passed granting or refusing permission and no final order imposing any condition can be passed by him. The decision is based on the construction of sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Act which provides that when the landlord applies for permission to execute a decree for ejectment and the Competent Authority has heard the parties and made such inquiry into the circumstances of the case as it thinks fit, it shall by an order in writing either grant such a permission or refuse it. But the learned Judge conceded that it was nto the meaning of the section that a conditional order could nto be passed at all and observed that in many cases in which hardship was involved to btoh parties a condition for surrender of a portion of the disputed property could and should be imposed when permission to execute the decree was refused to the landlord as a whole.