1991 PLP 1935 (MLD)

Writ Petition No.4598 of 1991, decided on 8th June, 1991.

S. 15

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Ejectment of tenant

Petitioner's application to be impleaded as a party in ejectment application rejected by Rent Controller

Validity-- Petitioner, upon facts presented to Court, was neither a necessary nor a proper party to ejectment application

No evidence on record to suggest that ejectment proceedings were collusively instituted to harm interest of petitioner

Petitioner, if allowed to be impleadcd to contest ejectment application, then simple ejectment application for eviction of tenant would be converted mainly into a complex title suit between respondent landlords and petitioner and relief asked for in ejectment application would pale into secondary importance

Petitioner had already taken his controversy to Civil Court against respondent landlords-- Petitioner being not a party to ejectment application, decision of same would not be binding upon him

Petitioner also did not claim to be a tenant under landlord

In absence of any material on record, petitioner's presence before Rent Controller could not be deemed to be necessary for final and effectual decision in ejectment application

Rent Controller's order not to implead petitioner as a party in ejectment application could not be characterised either as without jurisdiction or without lawful authority

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. A I R 1977 Orissa 183 and A I R 1978 J&K 84 rel. M. Irshad Chaudhry for Petitioner. This application under Article 199 of the Constitution, arises out of an ejectment petition filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 for eviction of respondent No-5 from the shop in dispute in his possession on the ground of rent-default and its requirement for their self-use. Respondent No-5 denied relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondents Nos.3 and 4 as also the allegations of rent-default and personal requirement of shop in question. On 25-3-1991, the Rent Controller settled a preliminary issue for deciding of the question about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and postponed the case for evidence on 28-4-1991. Thereafter, the ejectment case was adjourned to 4-6-1991. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a petition under Order I Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, for being impleaded as a party-respondent to the ejectment petition. It was stated in the petition that near portion of the shop popularly known as P-71/2 measuring 4' x 10' = 40 square feet was, in his possession for the past several years. The ground beneath the property No.P-71/2 belonged to Provincial Government, and, structure was made upon it by him. It was stated that ejectment case filed in respect of this property by respondents 3 and 4 was collusive with respondent No.5. Upon the above statement of facts, it was stated that he was a necessary party to the ejectment case, because its result shall materially affect him. Respondent No-5 supported the petitioner but respondents 3 and 4 opposed his intervention. By order dated 11-3-1991, Rent Controlier did not permit his joining the ejectment case. Against his order, petitioner filed a revision. It was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 10-4-1991. It was doubtful, whether the order of Rent Controller refusing impleadment of the petitioner as a party to the ejectment case was open to revision in the rent hierarchy. Petitioner has already filed a suit in the civil Court at Faisalabad against Province of Punjab, Deputy Commissioner/Collector District, Faisalabad, and, respondents Nos.3 and 4 for claiming a declaration that he was entitled to purchase this part of the property and respondents were not authorised to interfere with his possession. That suit is stated to be still sub judice. On query from the Court, learned counsel replied that initially an interim injunction was issued by the trial Court but upon hearing the parties, application was dismissed ors merits. It is not known, whether an appeal, was preferred against the decision of the trial Court refusing to issue interim injunction during the pendency of the civil suit. Upon facts presented to the Court, petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the ejectment case. There was no material to suggest that the ejectment proceedings were collusively instituted to harm the interests of the petitioner. If petitioner is allowed to be in "pleaded and to contest the ejectment petition, then the simple ejectment case for eviction of the alleged tenant will be converted mainly into a complex title suit between respondents Nos.3 and 4 and the petitioner and the relief asked for in the ejectment case will pale into secondary importance. Apart from that consideration, as observed above, petitioner has already taken his controversy to the Civil Court against respondents 3 and 4 etc. for claiming a title to the property allegedly in his possession numbered as P-71/2. Obviously, being not a party to the ejectment case, decision in it may riot be binding upon him. Petitioner does not claim to be a tenant of respondents Nos.3 and 4 as against their alleged tenant respondent No.5. Ejectment case covers rear portion of "Property P-71 whereas the petitioner lays claim to the property bearing No.P-71/2. No record of its ownership has been filed with the writ petition. In the context, it cannot be said that the presence of petitioner before the Rent Controller was necessary for a final and effectual decision in the ejectment case or that in his absence, no effective order could be made. In similar circumstances in cases reported in A I R 1977 Orissa 183, A I R 1978 Jammu & Kashmir 84, intervention of a third party was shut out. Therefore, the impugned decision could not have been characterised either as without jurisdiction or without lawful authority. Upon this view, interference in Constitutional jurisdiction, is denied by this Court and petitioner is left to pursue his other remedies at law. A.A./A-1343/L Petition dismissed.