1995 PLP 742 (MLD)

(iii) That the petitioner is a co‑sharer in the property in dispute and, therefore, is a necessary party in the ejectment petition.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents‑applicants has defended the order of the learned Rent Controller and has made following submissions:‑‑‑ (i) That the petitioner has challenged an interlocutory order through a writ petition which is not tenable in law. He has placed reliance on KLR 1994 (sic) page 418 and KLR 1994 (sic) p.533. (ii) That the petitioner is no longer a shareholder in the property in question as the suit for partition has been decreed by the learned Civil Court vide its judgment dated 9‑10‑1988 and the said decree has attained finality in view of the order passed by this Court in C.R. No.171‑D of 1989. (iii) That Muhammad Ashraf petitioner is a servant of Sh. Wajihuddin respondent No. 6 in this writ petition against whom ejectment application has been filed by the respondents.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through for the precedent case‑law.

8. The petitioner is neither a sub‑tenant nor he has adverted to any vested right which should have justified his impleadment as a party in the ejectment petition. The main grounds which have been pressed in this writ petition are that:‑‑ I (i) The petitioner is a co‑sharer in the property in question; and (ii) In the earlier round of litigation respondents Nos. 2 to 5 had filed a similar ejectment petition against respondent No.6 wherein the petitioner was arrayed as respondent No. 2.

9. So far as the question of being a co‑sharer in the property in dispute is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has very frankly conceded that he is no longer a co‑sharer in the said property in view of the aforementioned decree having attained finality. He further admits that he has no claim of ownership qua the upper portion of the property in dispute which is in his possession. As far as the second ground being agitated by the petitioner is concerned, I am afraid the same is not tenable in law because if a tenant brings in some third person to share the premises, the status of the third person is merely an intervenor who has no locus standi to defend a suit for ejectment independently of the tenant.

10. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court has categorically commented upon the status of such a person. In 1968 SCMR 734, it was held:‑‑ "West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13: ‑‑Tenant inducting another into premises without consent of landlord‑Such other person a mere licensee and has to leave alongwith tenant on the latter's ejectment from premises‑‑Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court refused." In 1986 SCMR 1638, it was held:‑‑‑ "Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13.‑‑Petitioner in occupation of property through original tenant‑‑‑Taking inconsistent pleas of holding title of property as well as being a tenant thereof‑‑ Petitioner, held, could not be allowed to take two different pleas in same breath‑‑Petition without merit dismissed:" In PLD 1959 (W.P.) Karachi 340, it was held:‑‑‑ "Landlord and tenant‑‑Person occupying premises through tenant‑‑ Bound by decree of ejectment against tenant." In 1981 CLC 212, it was held:‑‑‑ "West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑ And Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order I, Rule 10‑‑ Jurisdiction‑‑Jurisdiction conferred on Rent Controller only when relationship of landlord and tenant exists between parties‑‑Application of intervenor under Rule 10 of Order I, C.P.C. to be treated as party, held, rightly rejected‑‑Intervenor having physical possession of demised property through respondent‑company/tenant, ejectment of respondent‑company automatically includes ejectment of intervenor."

11. For aforementioned reasons, this petition has no merit and is dismissed with costs.

12. As respondents Nos.2 to 5 have suffered the agony of a protracted litigation qua the premises in question, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the ejectment petition pending before it before the year 1995 is out. A.A./M‑1921/L Petition dismissed.