1980 PLP 1223 (CLC)

Raja Said Akbar Khan for Appellant. Kh. Muhammad Farooq for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 and

4. Date of hearing : 11th November, 1979. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that respondent No. 1, Syed Ijaz Ali Rizvi filed an application,. under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, for ejectment of. the appellant Zahur Ahmad Qureshi and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, Abdul Majid and another from a shop on the ground that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had sub-let the shop to the appellant and that he needed the shop for his own occupation. The application was still pending when Ijaz Ali Rizvi sold the shop to . respon dent No. 2, Mst. Surraya Jabeen. On this, she made provision from being substituted for respondent Ijaz Ali Rizvi as applicant in the ejectment proceedings. Her petition in this behalf was, however, rejected by the Rent Controller by order, dated 19th November, 1978, on the ground that her cause of action was different from that of the original owner. He also observed that the personal need of Syed Ijaz Ali Rizvi was not the same as that of Mst. Surraya Jabeen. While disposing of her petition for being substituted in place of the original landlord, the learned Rent Controller also dismissed the ejectment application on the ground that as the maker thereof had sold the disputed property and was, not left with any title thereto, the ejectment application bad become infructuous.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, Syed Ijaz Ali Rizvi as well as Mst. Surraya Jabeen, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein, went in appeal before an Additional District Judge. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge was that the plea of personal need raised by Syed Ijaz Ali Rizvi was not available to Mst. Surraya Jabeen but she could prosecute the ejectment proceedings on the ground of sub-letting. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and allowed Mst. Surraya Jabeen to become applicant in place of Syed Ijaz Ali Rizvi and continue the ejectment proceedings only on the ground of sub letting. Resultantly, he remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller for fresh decision.

3. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Zahoor Ahmed Qureshi, to whom the shop in dispute is alleged to have been sub-let, has come up in second appeal to this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appeal filed before the learned Additional District Judge was not competent inasmuch as it was directed against an interlocutory order. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that since the order of the learned Rent Controller rejecting the petition of Mst. Surraya Jabeen to prosecute the ejectment proceedings was not an order of incidental nature, it could constitute the subject-matter of an appeal. He relied on Muhammad Umar and another v. Dr. Amina Ashraf (P L D 1977 Kar. 305) to support his contention.

5. For the purpose of deciding the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant in regard to the competency of the first appeal I need not determine the precise character of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on the petition of Mst. Surraya Jabeen for being substituted as applicant in the ejectment proceedings initiated by Syed Ijaz Ali Rizvi. As explained above, it was by one and the same order that the learned Rent controller had rejected her aforesaid petition as well as the ejectment application. As the order regarding the dismissal of the ejectment application was an order under section 13 of the Ordinance it was clearly appealable under section 15 thereof therefore, hold that the appeal taken to the learned Additional District Judge was quite competent.

6. As for the verdict of the learned Additional District Judge that Mst. Surraya Jabeen could continue the ejectment proceedings on the ground of sub-letting, learned counsel for the appellant maintained that since the shop in dispute was alleged to have been sub-let by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in favour of the appellant before it was purchased by Mst. Surraya Jabeen the plea of subletting was not available to her. He did not cite any authority to support his contention.

7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the first two respondents argued that as the ground of sub-letting was not personal to the original landlord it ensured for his successor-in-interest, namely, Mst. Surraya Jabeen also, especially when the original owner had, while selling the disputed property to Mst. Surraya Jabeen, transferred all of his rights to her. He cited Syed Muhammad Ali and another v. Jamil Ahmed (P L D 1976 Kar. 820) ; Mst. Sardar Begum v. Gulfaraz Khan (P L D 1967 Pesh. 176) and Muhammad Umer and another v. Dr. Amina Ashraf to support his arguments.

8. In all the three authorities cited just above it was ruled that when the property involved in any ejectment proceedings is transferred during the pendency of those proceedings the purchaser thereof can be substituted in place of the original landlord. No doubt, in none of these authorities the plea of sub-letting was raised for seeking ejectment of the tenant but the principle which can be deduced therefrom is that if a landlord takes out ejectment proceedings against his tenant on any ground which is no personal to him (original landlord), his successor-in-interest can also prosecute these proceedings. The ground of sub-letting too is not persona to a landlord. I, therefore, agree with the learned Additional Distric Judge that Mst. Surraya Jabeen could prosecute the ejectment proceeding on the said ground.

9. There is no merit in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs. M Y. M Appeal dismissed.