Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1052 of 1985, decided on 22nd December, 1985.

(Against the Judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 3‑12‑1985 in W.P. No. 665 of 1985).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, R. 10‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 2(i) & 13(2)(i)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Petitioner claiming to be impleaded as party on ground that he had purchased share in shop from brothers of tenant‑ Petitioner's claim rejected by Rent Controller‑‑On appeal District Judge held that appeal was not competent by petitioner as he was not a party to proceedings nor a person deriving interest or title from tenant‑‑Order upheld by High Court in writ jurisdiction‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑ Held: That petitioner wanted to be impleaded as party before Rent Controller not in capacity of a tenant or one deriving interest or title from tenant but as owner or co‑sharer of property‑‑On basis of such status petitioner could not get himself impleaded in proceedings before Rent Controller which was confined to landlord and tenant and those deriving interest from them‑‑Petitioner was however, at liberty to get his title and interest in property determined in accordance with law.

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Question of fact‑‑Ejectment proceedings‑ Difference in number of property in dispute‑‑Plea that property was same though its numbers were differently recorded in registered sale‑deed and ejectment application repelled‑‑Question of fact which had not been dealt with by any of authorities, disallowed to be raised at Supreme Court stage.

Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1985.

‑Raza Hussain was unsuccessful in getting himself impleaded in a petition for ejectment under Rent Restriction Ordinance seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 3‑12‑1985 whereby his constitutional petition claiming the same relief was dismissed.

On 2‑9‑1984 Shah Muhammad filed an ejectment petition against Muhammad Akram claiming that he was his tenant in respect of Shop No.123/2 Block‑B, Rail Bazar, Vehari on the basis of a rent note, dated 21‑1‑1981 and had defaulted in the payment of rent since January 1984. Abdul Chaffar and Abdur Razzak the two brothers of Muhammad Akram instituted an application before the Rent Controller on 9‑9‑1984 seeking to be impleaded as they claimed that they were in possession of the shop and not Muhammad Akram. On 28th of October, 1984 a registered sale‑deed was executed by these two brothers of Muhammad Akram in favour of petitioner Raza Hussain on the basis of which he too filed an application on 8‑12‑1984 claiming to be impleaded as a party on the basis of his possession over the shop. Muhammad Akram, the alleged tenant admitted the execution of the rent note and his possession over the shop under Shah Muhammad till 30‑11‑1981. He allowed an ejectment order to be passed against him. The Rent Controller rejected the claim of the petitioner to be impleaded in the rent control proceedings on the ground that he had purchased a share in Shop No.123/3 and not 123/2 which was in dispute. On appeal the learned District Judge held that an appeal was not competent by the petitioner as he was not a party to the proceedings nor a person deriving interest or title from the tenant. The constitutional petition filed by him was dismissed upholding the grounds made the basis by the Rent Controller and the District Judge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to show that though the numbers are differently recorded in the registered sale‑deed in favour of the petitioner and the application for ejectment of the tenant the property happens to be the same. According to him, the difference is on account of the difference in the revenue number and the municipal number. This is, in any case, a question of fact which has not been dealt with by any of the authorities.

We find that the petitioner wanted to be impleaded as a party before the Rent Controller not in the capacity of a tenant or one deriving interest or title from the tenant but as a owner or a co‑sharer of the property. On the basis of such a status he could not go himself impleaded in the proceedings before the Rent Controller which is confined to the landlord and the tenant and those deriving interest from them. The petitioner had no case to be impleaded as a party before the Rent Controller to convert the ejectment proceedings into one for determination of title in the property. The determination of the Rent Controller and the District Judge does not preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate legal steps, if so advised, to get his title and interest in the property determined in accordance with law. With these observations, leave to appeal is refused.

M.I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.