2011 PLP 1251 (CLC)

SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.

This constitutional petition is directed against an order dated 8-2-2011 passed by Mr. Nadeem Hassan Waseer, Special Judge, Rent Tribunal, Lahore whereby an application for review of the order dated 21-10-2010 was dismissed.

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that one Jamshaid Akhtar filed an ejectment petition under section 15 Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 against Sheikh Asim Latif, on the ground of default in the payment of rent which was contested by the tenant by filing leave to defend the petition not denying in so many words the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties. Later on 23-4-2010 Khalida Rafique wife of late Javed Akhtar brother Jamshaid Akhtar, and the children of said Javed Akhtar made an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading them as party in the ejectment petition on the ground that they had rented out the demised premises to Shaikh Asim. The application was contested by the respondent Jamshaid Akhtar and the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 18-9-2010 impleaded Mst. Khalida Rafique and others as respondents in the ejectment petition. The learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 21-10-2010 closed the defence of newly-added respondents stating that they failed to file an application seeking leave to defend the petition within the statutory time. The petitioner filed review application before the learned Tribunal which was dismissed on 8-2-2011. In the instant petition vires of the above said orders have been called into question.

3. The learned counsel for respondent No.l who appeared in response to the notice of the court, while the other respondents did not turn up, submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable as it is directed against an interim order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal. The objection has been examined and it is found that the order of the court closing the right to file leave to defend the petition has become final within the meaning of section 2(b) of Ordinance ibid to the extent of the petitioner. Although an appeal could be preferred under section 28 of the Act by the petitioner, but in the opinion of this court the remedy of appeal was neither adequate nor efficacious. The constitutional petition is thus maintainable in this court. The Rent Tribunal has ignored the material fact that the present petitioner and respondent No.1 being co-owners are claiming to be the landlord of respondent No.2. The both are having lease agreements. In such like situation the present petitioner could be joined as co-petitioner in the ejectment matter. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner does not want to evict the respondent No.2 from the demised premises while respondent No.1 wished so. Now the question is whether co-owner impleaded as respondent in ejectment petition, along with the tenant can be treated as co-tenant and can be required under section 22 of Act to file leave to defend petition. If not then what is remedy for such person who has been impleaded as party in lis and wanted to place on record his point of view. The reply of this legal proposition is not much difficult as firstly petitioner can never be treated as co-tenant with respondent No.2 because they do not fulfil conditions of being tenant as enunciated in section 2(L) of the Act. If it is so then the provisions of section 22 of the Act are not applicable, and he cannot be directed to file leave to contest what to talk about time of ten days for filing application. Further about remedy for placing on record their protest or objections, the Tribunal may resort to general principles of civil law and require a written statement so that picture of other side could also be viewed for safely administering justice. This remedy to the petitioner is available in addition to any other remedy provided to him by law. In these circumstances, court below has committed illegality in asking for leave application under section 22 from the present petitioner and thereafter penalizing him through the impugned orders. As such this petition is allowed by declaring the order dated 21-10-2010 and 8-2-2011 as null and void. The learned Special Judge Rent Lahore shall afford an opportunity to the writ petitioner to file the written statement whereafter he shall pass a proper order permissible by law. There shall be no order as to costs. M.H./S-80/L Case remanded.