1989 PLP 1852 (MLD)

Manzurul Haq for Appellant. Asad Ali Bilgrami for Respondent. Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. . .

2. Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami, Advocate .has filed Vakalatnama pursuant to issuance of pre-admission notice by the Court. In this appeal the impugned order is dated 28-4-1986 passed by Rent Controller (East) Karachi, whereby he has dismissed application filed by appellant /intervenor under Order 21 Rule 99, C.P.C. during execution proceedings. It would be pertinent to mention here that originally rent proceedings were pending in the Court of Rent Controller between Mst. Haseana Begum as landlady and Dr. Wafa Abbas as tenant. During the pendency of the rent case-present appellant Shahabuddin riled an application as an intervenor under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. on the ground that he claimed title to the property which was dismissed on merits vide, order dated 3-12-1979. On that application notice was issued and objections were filed and after hearing both the parties the order was passed as stated above. Shahabuddin did not file any appeal against that order and remained silent for a very long time and after the proceedings concluded before the Rent Controller, and execution was filed, he once again attempted to interfere in the proceedings by filing the application under Order 21, Rule 99, C.P.C., which has been dismissed by the concerned Court for reasons stated therein. It is quite clear that when application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. was dismissed no further appeal was filed against that order particularly when the appellant had proposed to join the proceedings on the ground that he claimed title to the property in dispute and when his application was dismissed, order of the Rent Controller was final so far his claim to be joined as a party is concerned. In this context it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he did not file appeal earlier for the reason that application under Order I, Rule

10. C.P.G. was interlocutory order against which appeal was not competent under the statute., It is further stated by him that another reason for not filing the appeal was that appellant did not propose to join the proceedings as a tenant or deriving right from the tenant but had filed application as owner. In support of the proposition he has relied upon the case of Raza Hussain v. District Judge, Vehari and others (1986 SCMR 1267). In the reported case petitioner filed application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. in the rent proceedings between other parties which was dismissed and the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed and then he riled writ petition which was dismissed and then he filed petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. Petition in the Supreme Court was also dismissed with observation that petitioner was claiming right not as tenant but as landlord and the relevant observation is as under:

"The petitioner had no case to be impleaded as a party before the Rent Controller to convert the ejectment proceedings into one for determination of title in the property. The determination of the Rent Controller and the District Judge does not preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate legal steps, if so advised, to get his title and interest in the property determined, in accordance with law" On the other hand Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami, Advocate for the respondent has submitted that in this appeal the appellant filed his application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. which was dismissed against which no appeal was filed and subsequently one other attempt has been deliberately made by the appellant to protract the proceedings. It is further submitted that his subsequent application filed at the stage of execution has been rightly dismissed by the Rent Controller and no interference is called for. In support of the proposition advanced by him reliance is placed by him, on the following cases 1982 SCMR 233. 1985 SCMR 1.991 & 1993, 1983. CLC 40 and 1986 CL6 1870. For the facts and reasons stated above, I am of the view that no interference is called for as such impugned order is hereby maintained and the appeal is dismissed in liming: H.B.T./S-317/K?????????? Appeal dismissed.