P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

(b) Landlord and tenant‑ Person occupying premises through tenant‑Bound by decree or ejectment against tenant‑Civil Proce dure Code (V of 1908), O X XI, rr. 98 to

101. Abul Khair and A. F. M. Mokkarim for Petitioner. Akhtar Hasan and Iqbal H. Kazi for Respondents‑ No s. 2 & 3 respectively. Date of hearing :7th January 1959. JUDGMENT. KAIKAUS, J.‑In this writ petition one Gulzar Mohammad a lodger in a hotel known as Guest House seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus quashing the judgment and the decree passed by the Sub‑Judge, First Class, Karachi in favour of Baipai Kaikhusro respondent No. 3, ordering, the ejectment of Habib Karam Ali respondent No. 4 in this writ petition, from a bungalow which is a part of the Guest House. The Guest House consists of three bungalows one of which is owned by respondent 'No.

3. One A. R. Malkani was a tenant from month to month of the three bungalows and was running the Guest House: A. R. Malkani became an evacuee and the Guest House was allotted to respondent No.

4. Respondent No. 3 filed a suit against respondent No. 4 for ejectment in the Court of Sub‑Judge First Class, Karachi and secured a decree. The contention of the petitioner is that this decree is null and void and is not liable to be executed because the bungalow in respect of which it has been‑granted is evacuee property and no decree in respect of evacuee property can be passed by a Civil Court. The petition should fail for two reasons. The first is that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. The mere fact that a decree was passed without jurisdiction could not be the subject‑matter of a writ petition unless the person who approached the High Court was one who had some legal right in the property to which the, decree related. The petitioner, according to allega tions in the petition, is only a lodger. He is just a licensee who occupies the hotel in consideration of payment of certain sum. He has no right in the hotel itself and therefore is not a proper person to approach the Court for setting aside a decree in respect t of the hotel. At the time of argument it was alleged before us that the petitioner had become a lessee by payment of certain sum by way of rent. It was said that this had happened before the petition was filed but this fact is not mentioned in the petition and is obviously an after‑thought. The second reason why the petition should fail is that the peti tioner is bound by the decree passed against respondent No.

4. His claim is that he is a tenant of the property. Truly he is only a licensee and a person who has been put in occupation by the judgment debtor but whichever position he accepted his claim is only through judgment‑debtor and a person who claims through judgment debtor is bound by a decree passed against him. If a defendant against whom a suit for possession or ejectment is filed allows another person to occupy the property in dispute after the filing of the suit that person is bound by the decree passed in the suit as much as the defendant himself. There is no need f‑or a separate suit against a person who comes into occupation or in possession of the property in dispute through the defendant or the judgment debtor. If it were otherwise there would be no end to litigation. He is bound because he claims only through the judgment‑debtor and he has got no independent right or title of .his own. That a person who claims only through a judgment‑debtor should be bound is not a proposition which is liable to be disputed and is recognized in Order XXI, rules 98-101 C. P. C. This petition is dismissed with costs. A. H. Petition dismissed.