2008 PLP 650 (CLC)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.

The respondent No.1 filed an ejectment petition on behalf of respondent No.2 his wife, an ex parte order was passed in favour of the petitioner, later the property was sold to Shahid Hanif.

2. The respondent No.2 thereafter filed an execution application on 27-5-2006 without disclosing that the property subject-matter, of the dispute had been sold. The petitioner filed objections to the execution application, the learned Executing Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner filed, appeal, which also was dismissed. Hence the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mushtaq Mehdi Akhtar, Advocate contended that the execution petition was filed by an alien, who has no locus standi, the ejectment order was passed in favour of respondent No.2, thereafter the property was sold to Shahid Hanif and as such, the interest of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the property stood extinguished, thus, the execution petition was not maintainable, he also stated that the matter also falls within the ambit of concealment of facts, as this change was specifically pleaded by the petitioner concurrently, before the Executing Court and the lower Appellate Court, but the same was not attended to, and proper finding in this context was not given by either Court. He also adverted to the definition of "landlord" as contained in section 2(c) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which reads:-- "Landlord" means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person, or as a trustee guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorized and every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord." and emphasized that the definition of the "landlord" as contained (supra) does not include a buyer, he, thereafter, prayed that both orders passed be set aside and the execution petition be dismissed. To augment his contentions the learned counsel relied on Muhammad Yasin v. Sheikh Ghulam Murtaza and another PLD 1988 SC 163 and Syed Iftikhar-ud-Din Haider Gardezi and 9 others v. Central Bank of India Ltd. Lahore and 2 others 1996 SCMR 669.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents Malik Amjad Perez, Advocate also adverted to the definition of "landlord" as contained in section 2(c) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 to emphasize that the definition contains any person who derives title from the "landlord". In this context he referred to the following lines:-- "every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord." He, therefore, submitted that the respondents not only had locus standi but every right in law to file the execution petition. To augment his submissions he also referred to the fact that the definition of landlord as encompassed in this definition is for the benefit of the landlord and thus, has a very wide meaning, in fact it includes any person who receives rent of the disputed property, therefore, it cannot be interpreted in a narrow and restricted manner. As far as the title of property is concerned, it now stands transferred in the name of Shahid Hanif, he thus, has a right to prosecute the matter. He, thereafter, adverted to the provisions of Order XXI, rules 10 and 16, C.P.C. to submit that the matter falls within the meaning of assignee and transferee and as ejectment order is to be executed like a decree, therefore, the powers contained in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked by an Executing Court, and the benefit of the provisions as contained in rules 10 and 16 of Order XXI, C.P.C. is applicable to rent proceedings. He also referred to section 25 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1963 in this context, to conclude he referred to the following precedents:-- Anwar Sultana Malik v. Rent Controller/Civil Judge First Class and 2 others 1999 MLD 3360; Muhammad Bashir and another v. Province of Punjab through Collector of District Gujrat and others 2003 SCMR 83 and Muhammad Saleem Ullah and another v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and others 2003 YLR 998. 5.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail.

6. The core proposition for adjudication is whether Shahid Hanif, the vendee has locus standi to continue with the execution proceedings, in the name of respondents Nos.1 and 2 after the sale of the disputed property in his favour, or was this right exclusive to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 only.

7. The facts pleaded inter se the parties are admitted. It is proved from record that the property was sold by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to Shahid Hanif earlier to the filing of the execution application but the execution petition was not filed by him in his own name, he continued these proceedings in the name of respondents Nos.1 and 2.

8. The definition of the word "landlord" as contained in section 2(c) is very wide and encompasses any person who has a right to receive rent, it is not restricted only to a person, who is owner of the property. This definition has been further expanded to include beneficiary, guardian, receiver, executor, administrator or any other person, the matter does not end here, it even includes a tenant who sublets the property and also includes every person who derives title from the landlord. In these circumstances it is absolutely clear and unambiguous that the definition of the word "landlord" as contained in section 2(c) of the Ordinance has to be interpreted in a very wide sense, the use of the word "includes" enlarges its scope further. It has so been interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court, in the following precedents:- Malik Saleem and another v. Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and 3 others PLD 1976 SC 1233, Usmania Glass Sheet Factory Limited, Chittagong v. Sales Tax Officer, Chittagong PLD 1971 SC 205, Shah Mardan Shah and 3 others v. Chief Land Commissioner, Sindh and 2 others PLD 1974 Kar. 375 and Commissioner of Income Tax/Sales Tax v. Lever Brothers (Pakistan) Limited 1986 PTD 29.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents is correct also, to submit, that the definition of "landlord" encompasses "every person from time to time deriving title under the landlord", includes person who has purchased property. There is absolute logic and rationale, in this interpretation, as otherwise, it would, in fact, put an embargo upon the landlord's unfettered right to sell property during any legal proceedings, which is repulsive to the rule of natural justice and equity. Thus, Shahid Hanif did have locus standi and cause, to continue with the execution proceedings in the name of respondents Nos. 1 and

2. As far as the question of concealment is concerned, it is not relevant, because definition of landlord as contained in section 2(c) of Ordinance includes a person claiming title from former landlord, he thus, can pursue the proceedings in his own name, or in the name of the original landlord. This proposition has earlier, too, been addressed in this manner, by this Court in Anwar Sultana Malik v. Rent Controller/Civil Judge First Class and 2 others 1999 MLD 3360. The precedents referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are inapplicable to present facts and resultantly distinguishable.

10. For the foregoing reasons the impugned orders are unexceptionable and, therefore, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.H./H-3/L Revision dismissed.