1987 PLP 385 (MLD)

Jariullah Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1986. This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.3895, 3896, 3897 of 1984 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to these petitions are that the property in dispute being an evacuee property was transferred jointly in favour of Syed Abdul Majid, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.l to 4 and Muhammad Yousaf the predecessor-in -interest of respondent Nos.5-A to 5-K. Mst. Zahida Begum and 3 others, the successors-in-interest of Abdul Majid and Muhammad Yusuf the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.5-A to 5-K filed ejectment petitions under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against Messrs Muhammad Sharif, Shadey and Gulzar petitioners who occupied different portions of the aforesaid property at the relevant time. During the pendency of the aforementioned ejectment petitions Muhammad Yusuf died and his legal representatives were brought on the record. Mst. Koori mother of late Muhammad Yusuf was also impleaded as one of the respondents. The petitioners denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller found that since the property in dispute stood validly transferred in favour of Abdul Majid and Muhammad Yusaf, the petitioners became tenants under them by operation of law. As the aforesaid petitioners challenged the title of the landlords and did not pay rent to them, the learned Rent Controller vide order, dated 10-12-1983 directed their ejectment from the disputed property. The petitioners and Mst. Koori unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid orders before lower appellate authority. Hence these petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the property in dispute was jointly owned by Abdul Majid and Muhammad Yusuf, predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents and one Mst. Koori, the petitioner who is mother of Muhammad Yusuf. She did not seek petitioners ejectment, therefore, the ejectment petitions against them were not maintainable till the property in dispute was partitioned. In support of his submission he relied ors Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others v. Sh. Abdul Latif and another 1971 S C M R 198.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting-respondents on the contrary submitted that Muhammad Yusaf himself had sought ejectment of the petitioners along with successors-in-interest of Syed Abdul Majid. It was further contended that the factum of Mst. Koori being mother of Muhammad Yusuf is still not settled. The case cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable. It was argued that even one of the landlords can maintain ejectment petition against a tenant from a building owned by several landlords. In support of his submission he relied on Ghulam Rasul and others v. Hajan Bakhtawar and another, 1981 S C M R 193 and Mosa Bhai v. Yousaf and another, 1984 C L C 2341.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on the record. Admittedly Muhammad Yusuf and successors-in-interest of Syed Abdul Majid; who are respondents in these petitions had filed ejectment petitions against the petitioners. The ejectment petition filed by one of the co-owners without joining the others is maintainable as held in Khaliq Ahmed v. Abdul Ghani and anothers, P L D 1973 S C

214. The petitioners have neither placed on the record written reply of Mst. Koori filed in the ejectment petitions nor copy of her statement recorded before the Rent Controller that the petitioners had occupied the disputed portions of the property on her behalf. In Muhammad Nawaz's case one of the co-sharers namely Sh. Muhammad Latif was in possession of the property through his brother Muhammad Rafiq. It was held in that case that a co-sharer in possession of the joint property-could not be evicted without filing suit for partition. In the instant case Mst. Koori at ho stage either before the Rent Controller or before the lower appellate authority had asserted that she -3s in possession of the disputed property through the petitioners. In these circumstances the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and maintained in appeal by the learned District Judge are subject to no interference in writ jurisdiction.

6. In the result these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with costs. H.B.T./M-140/L Petition dismissed.