P L D 1978 Lahore 1364 (PLP)

Sh. Talib Hussain for Petitioner. Muhammad 1qbal for Respondent. Date of hearing : 26th November 1977. An order dated 30-4-1977 of the learned Additional District Judge, refusing to implead the petitioner as a party to the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, has been questioned in the present revision petition.

2. Abdul Ghafoor respondent, being the landlord, sought ejectment of Muhammad Ashiq Raza on various grounds and filed an application under section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) before the Rent Controller. His application was allowed and Muhammad Ashiq Raza, the alleged tenant made an appeal which was pending before the learned Additional District Judge when the petitioner sought to be impleaded as a party on the ground that the rent-note in favour of the respondent was executed not only by the appellant Muhammad Ashiq Raza, but also by the applicant, and that being a co-tenant he was also a necessary party. The learned Additional District Judge, by the impugned order refused to join the petitioner as a party to the appeal and dismissed his application. Therefore, this revision petition.

3. It is argued that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been made applicable to the proceedings under the Ordinance, therefore, a revision against the order passed by the appellate authority is not competent. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to Ibrahim v. Muhammad Rafiq (P L D 1964 Lah. 644) and Haji Hayat Gut v. Aziz-ul-Haq and another (P L D 1966 Pesh. 118) but both the cases are not directly applicable to the facts of the present case. In those cases, the revision petitions were made against the orders of the Rent Controller, and it was held that since the Controller being a persona designata was not a Court subordinate to the High Court, the provisions of section 115 of the Code, therefore, were not attracted and this Court was not competent to revise the order passed by the Controller. In the present case, the question would arise whether the learned Additional District Judge, while exercising the powers of the appellate authority under section 15(1(2) and (3) of the Ordinance, was a Court for purposes of section 115, C. P. C. After going through the change, made by the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (XXI of 1966) it is laid down in Abdul Haq v. Saif-ur-Rahman and others (P L D 1968 Lah. 478) that the appellant power under the Ordinance is now invested by the statute in the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in his ordinary judicial capacity as the Presiding Officer of the principal Court in the District. He does not act as a persona designata in hearing the appeal under subsection (1) of section 15 of the Ordinance (as amended). Following this view for the purposes of section 115, C. P, C., the learned Additional District Judge is the Court subject to the superintendence of and subordinate to the High Court and a revision would lie to the High Court against the order passed by him as a Court.

4. The petitioner was refused to be impleaded in the appeal which was discretionary with the learned Additional District Judge. In Begum Mehrunnisa v. National Building (1972 S C M R 102) the petitioner was not a party to the suit for specific performance and the refusal to implead her in appeal was held to have not affected her interest because the considerations that weighed with the High Court in refusing to implead the petitioner were relevant and reasonable. In the present case, the petitioner was not a party originally. He approached the appellate Court for being impleaded as one of the respondents in the appeal. In such circumstances, he was not likely to suffer anymore, therefore, the discretion exercised against him, by not adding him a party at the appellate stage, did not give him a cause to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

5. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the revision petition. It is a dismissed with no order as to costs. S. A. H.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition dismissed.