2013 PLP 2714 (YLR)

ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.

Through this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 1-6-2010 passed by respondent No.1 whereby he accepted the application under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C.

2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are that on 9-7-2001 the petitioner filed an ejectment petition against respondent No.2 for vacation of House No.E-236, Street No.6, Gulbahar Colony, Lahore Cantt. before the Rent Controller. During pendency of the ejectment petition an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. was filed but dismissed on 20-3-2007. Respondent No.2 then moved an application under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. on behalf of respondent No.3 on 26-5-2008, on which written reply was submitted. Another similar application was also filed. On 1-6-2010 the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. was accepted by the Rent Controller. Hence this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. is not applicable in the rent proceedings as the proceedings are only between the landlord and tenant; that respondents should first vacate the premises as during pendency a suit for specific performance or declaration questioning the title do not affect the proceedings; the subsequent purchaser is not relevant party. Lastly submits that principle of lis pendens is not applicable in the instant case. Places reliance on Raza Hussain v. District Judge, Vehari and others (1986 SCMR 1267), Abdul Rasheed v. Maqbool Ahmad and others (2011 SCMR 320), Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad (deceased) through L.Rs. (2006 SCMR 1068), Ghulam Fatima and others v. Rahim Bakhsh and others (1988 SCMR 250), Muhammad Naeem Butt v. Shaukat Ali and others (2008 SCMR 1024) and Khawaja Ziaul Islam v. Alauddin Malik and another (2010 CLC 273) in support of his claim.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order was passed on the basis of sale-deed and original power of attorney which create right in favour of the respondents; that F.I.R. No.924 of 2008 under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. was registered by the petitioner against respondents Nos.2 and 3 which was cancelled on 19-6-2010 by the concerned Magistrate; that a suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 26-1-2010; that a suit for declaration and cancellation of general power of attorney was also dismissed on 15-5-2009; that the document on the basis of which the respondents were made a party have not been declared as forged; that there is no rent agreement or any receipt of rent on record; that property has been sold out to one Qamar. Places reliance on Mst. Khursheed Begum v. Malku and others (1983 SCMR 534) and Metropolitan Corporation of Lahore through Administrator v. Syed Bhais (Pvt.) Limited through Managing Director and 5 others (2004 MLD 1395 Lahore), to argue that in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation and to prove the valuable rights of the party the respondents were rightly made a party under Order I Rule10, C.P.C.

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

6. The impugned order reveals that on the basis of possession over the property respondents were made a party to the proceedings under Rent law. In the esteemed judgment titled Raza Hussain v. District Judge, Vehari and others 1986 SCMR 1267 it was held that a person having purchased the property was not held as necessary party to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. in rent proceedings. In case Abdul Rasheed v. Maqbool Ahmed and others (2011 SCMR 320) supra it was also held that a tenant was required to vacate the rented premises if he claims to have purchased the demised premises, as his claim is subject-matter of a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. In case Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad (deceased) through L.Rs. (2006 SCMR 1068) it is held that if a tenant denies the relationship of the landlord and tenant he should first vacate the premises in his possession and then contest his proprietary rights. By applying above said principles in the instant case the in-escapable conclusion is that a tenant remains a tenant, he cannot prolong his occupation by exercising his right of being subsequent purchaser unless so held by the court of competent jurisdiction. The reason behind is that he has no status to justify his possession and if he denies the relationship of landlord and tenant he will be known to be an illegal occupant. The rent proceedings are between the land owner and tenant and entry or interference by the third party is to be jealously guarded. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Resultantly application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed. JJK/M-68/L Petition accepte