2020 PLP 1286 (CLC)

WIQAR AHMAD, J.

This order is directed to dispose of W.P. No. 445-M of 2015 filed by the petitioner against respondents under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 filed an application on 13.05.2013 for ejectment of the petitioners from the premises known as "Akbari Caf " and other adjacent shops fully described in the head-note of the application, which was duly replied by respondent No. 1 (petitioner herein). On 31.07.2013 the petitioner had filed an application for summery rejection of the ejectment application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The said application was disposed of by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 10.01.2014. The petitioner filed another application on 14.02.2015 for summery rejection of the ejectment application. It was asserted in the application that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (two of the petitioners before Rent Controller) had patched up the matter with the petitioner and they were no more interested in demolition of the premises in dispute, therefore the earlier application filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 6 had become infructuous and same should be dismissed accordingly. The subsequent application was also dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide the impugned order dated 09.05.2015, whereafter the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer; "It is therefore, very humbly requested that under the above circumstances of the case by allowing the instant writ petition the impugned order dated 09.05.2015 may please be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires and main ejectment application/petition filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 be dismissed. Any other remedy which this Hon'ble Court deems just and appropriate and has not been specifically prayed for may also be granted."

3. Learned counsel for petitioner stated during the course of his arguments that respondents Nos. 6 and 7 who were petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in the application for ejectment of tenant had brought separate applications for enhancement of rent which had already been decided and executed as well, therefore the application for ejectment had become non-maintainable and same should have been rejected summarily by the Rent Controller. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex reported as "PLD 2000 Supreme Court 787".

4. Learned counsel for respondents submitted in rebuttal that the only purpose of the instant petition was to delay the proceedings before the Rent Controller in which the petitioner has succeeded, otherwise neither the instant writ petition was maintainable nor same possessed any merits. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on "PLD 2000 Supreme Court 67, 2002 SCMR 429 and PLD 2000 Peshawar 65, 2016 CLC 1905 (Islamabad).

5. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Perusal of record reveals that the application for ejectment of the petitioner was brought by respondents Nos.1 to 6 on 13.05.2013.The petitioners had filed an application under VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. which was disposed of vide order dated 10.01.2014. He filed another application for summary rejection of the application for ejectment, which was also dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 09.05.2015. The latter application was filed on the ground that since two of the petitioners before the Rent Controller had filed another application for enhancement of rent, which had finally been decided and executed as well, therefore the petition for ejectment had become non-maintainable. The grounds raised in the application even if are presumed to be correct same would not constitute a ground for rejection of the application in a summary manner. No co-owner and co-sharer have ever come before the Tribunal or this Court disowning the application for ejectment filed by them jointly. If petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in the application for ejectment had separately filed application for enhancement of rent and same had been decided on merit, or under section 89-A C.P.C., it would not create a bar in the way of seeking ejectment of the respondents nor the same renders the application for ejectment non-maintainable. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgments in the case of "Altaf Hussain v. Mst. Nuzhat-un-Nisa" reported as "PLD 2000 Supreme Court 67" and in the case of "Faqir Khan v. Khalid Hussain and others reported as "PLD 2000 Peshawar 65". Even one of the co-sharer can file an application for ejectment. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Muhammad Hanif and another v. Muhammad Jamil Turk and 5 others" reported as "2002 SCMR 429". The instant petition is therefore found to be meritless beside being not maintainable as the interim order of Rent Controller is not assailable under writ jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance in this respect is also placed on the judgments in the case of "Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others" reported as "PLD 2009 Supreme Court 45" and in the case of "Atiq-ur-Rehman v. Naima Tabassum and others" reported as "2016 CLC 1905 (Islamabad)".

7. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition against the order of Rent Controller dated 09.05.2015. During pendency of the petition before this Court, record of the case was also requisitioned on 30.10.2015. The petitioner have been able to drag a rent case from 13.05.2013 till today i.e. 21.11.2019. He appears to be successful in achieving his objectives of causing delay in the process. The learned Rent Controller is therefore directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously. If the petitioner wants to file any further application same should not be disposed of through an interim order and should be kept pending and decided at the time of final decision of the application filed by respondents Nos.1 to 6, unless the learned Rent Controller himself feels that the application so filed require an early decision. Since the petition in hand has caused material prejudice to the respondents, which was found to be non-maintainable and meritless therefore cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed against the petitioner. The petition in hand is accordingly dismissed with the cost of Rs.10,000/-. ZC/61/P Petition dismissed.