1991 PLP 1597 (MLD)

(1) Whether the respondent is not defaulter? (2) Whether the respondent has made additions without the consent of petitioner, if so, its effect? OPP. (3) Whether the respondent has sublet the premises in question to one Badar Shah? OPP. (4) What is the actual rate of rent? O.P.Parties. In support of his case, respondent No.1 examined Sheikh Asmat Ullah and he himself appeared as P.W.2. The petitioner, on the other hand, produced three witnesses, namely, Sardar Muhammad P.W.1, Zubair R.W.2, Badar Shah R.W.3 and himself appeared as R.W.4.

2. On the basis of the evidence produced before him, the Rent Controller held the petitioner to be a defaulter; and further that he had made additions and alterations in the property without the permission of the petitioner and has thus violated the provisions of section 13(2) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. So far as the issue No.3 regarding sub-letting was concerned, it was found that Badar Shah was not a sub-tenant but was a co-tenant alongwith the petitioner in the premises in question. While directing the eviction of the petitioner from the plot in question, the Rent Controller considered the question as to whether any effective order could be passed in the absence of Badar Shah, the co-tenant, who had not been impleaded as a party in the ejectment petition. In that behalf, it was observed that as Badar Shah, had appeared as R.W.3, and put forward his point of view, there was no necessity of impleading him as a party

3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 14th March, 1989. The petitioner has now filed this Constitutional petition, assailing the order of the Rent Controller and the judgment of the Additional District Judge.

4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the Rent Controller had himself held that Badar Shah was a co-tenant alongwith the petitioner, no order of ejectment could be passed without impleading Badar Shah as a party to the proceedings. The learned counsel has relied upon Khalid Saeed v. Allauddin Pehlwan and 3 others 1980 C L C 133 and Majid Hussain and 5 others v. Muhammad Rafiq and another 1980 C L C 154, to contend that if some co-tenants are not impleaded as parties in the ejectment petition, the same is not competent.

5. It is to be seen in the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Rent Controller though an objection was raised that Badar Shah was one of the co-tenants alongwith the petitioner and should have been impleaded as a party, but no effort was made by the petitioner to have an issue in that respect framed. Even in the memorandum of appeal, no such objection was raised before the learned Appellate Court. This contention of the learned counsel, therefore, cannot be examined in the present proceedings.

6. Be that as it may, admittedly Badar Shah was fully aware of the proceedings before the Rent Controller as he had appeared as a witness of the petitioner. At no stage did he come forward to have himself impleaded as a party, either before the Pent Controller or lower appellate Court. He has not even challenged the ejectment order before any forum. The petitioner has as such no locus standi to raise any objection for the benefit of Badar Shah. As a result of what has been said above, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner is allowed four months' time to vacate the premises. H.B.T./M-2856/L Petition dismissed.