Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 341 of 1986, decided on 13th December, 1986.

---S.13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Claim of petitioners to be made parties in ejectment application--Requirement--Rent Controller, having discretion to add names of petitioners as parties in ejectment application, applying his conscious mind to facts and circumstances of case giving sound and cogent reasons for rejection of such claim--High Court refusing to implead such petitioners as parties in writ petition between parties to ejectment proceedings when the petition for special leave to appeal against order of High Court rejecting their application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. filed by petitioners in Supreme Court was still pending--Petitioners' plea to be impleaded as party in ejectment proceedings, held, could not be sustained on merit in circumstances of case.

1984 C L C 2196; 1980 C L C 154 and P L D 1975 Lah. 791 ref.

Ziauddin Ahmad Qamar for Appellant.

Arif Saeed Khan Khosa with Mushtaq Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6.

Date of hearing: 13th December, 1986.

Through this Constitutional Petition Rashid Muslim and 8 others, the petitioners want this Court to declare the order dated 6-3-1986 passed by Rent Controller, Multan, respondent No.8, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading to this petition (as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners) briefly are that Abdul Bashir, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and Mian Nasim Muslim, respondent No.6 were tenants of the properties in dispute under Syed Abbas Hussain Shah and others. He died in 1965 leaving behind the petitioners and Mian Nasim Muslim respondent No.6 as his successors-in-interest. After having purchased the property from Syed Abbas Hussain Shah and others, Syed Hurr Riahi Gardezi. and 4 others, respondents No.l to 5, filed application for ejectment from disputed properties against Mian Nasim Muslim alone on the strength of rent deed executed by the latter on 7-5-1969. The application was resisted by Mian Nasim Muslim respondent No.6, who not only denied the averments in the plaint but also raised several preliminary objections in the written statement. The learned Rent Controller directed Mian Nasim Muslim respondent No. 6 to deposit future rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 500 p.m. before 15th of each succeeding month. Since Mian Nasim Muslim respondent failed to deposit the monthly rent of the month of July, 1983 before 15th August, 1983, therefore, the defence was struck off and an order for the ejectment of respondent No.6 was passed on 4-11-1984. Feeling aggrieved of this order Mian Nasim Muslim respondent No.6 filed appeal which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge who while accepting the same remanded the case to Rent Controller for decision on merits. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application before the Rent Controller for impleading them as parties. Feeling not satisfied with the order of remand passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Syed Hurr Riahi Gardezi and 4 others, respondents No.l to 5 filed W.P. No.554/85. The petitioners then filed application before this Court for impleading them as parties to the aforesaid writ petition, which was dismissed on 5-2-1986. The petitioners then filed petition for special leave to appeal No.278/86 against this order which is still pending before the Honourable Supreme Court. The application moved by the petitioners for impleading them as parties in the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 6-3-1986, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners being the legal heirs of Abdul Bashir, deceased tenant, are necessary party and as such, should have been impleaded as parties in the ejectment petition. Reliance has been placed on case 1984 C L C 2196, 1980 C L C 154 and P L D 1975 Lah. 791. Learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the learned Rent Controller had a discretion to add the names of the petitioners as parties in the ejectment application, that the Rent Controller has applied his conscious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, that he attended to the arguments advanced by the petitioners before him; that he has given sound and cogent reasons for the rejection of the application of the petitioner for impleading them as parties, that he has neither flouted the provisions of relevant law nor has violated the case law laid down by the superior Courts; that the High Court vide its order dated 5-2-1986 had refused to implead the petitioners as parties in the writ petition filed by Mian Nasim Muslim respondent against the order dated 8-5-1985 of the Additional District Judge remanding the case to the Rent Controller for decision on merits; that the learned counsel for the petitioners has frankly and rightly admitted at the bar that the petitioners are not in possession of the disputed properties and that Mian Nasim Muslim respondent alone has been paying rent of the properties to the landlord. Furthermore, there is a rent deed executed by Mian Nasim Muslim in the year 1969 in favour of Syed Abbas Hussain Shah and others, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.l to 5. The case law submitted by the learned counsel is quite distinguishable and that the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 5-9-1986 passed by the High Court in W.P. No.554/86 rejecting their application under Order 1 Rule 10 C P C for impleading them as parties in the writ petition is still pending before the Honourable Supreme Court. For all these reasons, I do, not desire to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Court.

For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It would, however, be open to the petitioners to move fresh application for impleading them as parties as and when fresh ground arises in due course of events.

A . A . / R-28/ L 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.