1997 PLP 1543 (CLC)

3. The respondent filed an ejectment petition seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of default in the payment of rent, having caused damage to the tenanted premises and her bona fide need for personal residence. It was resisted by the petitioner, who, even preferred a claim of recovery of sum of Rs.20,000 which, statedly, had been incurred with due permission of the respondent.

4. Matters in controversy, arising out of divergent pleadings of parties, were reduced and converted into following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the respondent is entitled to receive Rs.20,000 from the applicant which he spent on the construction of the shop with prior permission of the applicant? OPP. (2) Whether the applicant requires the premises for her personal use? OPP (3) Whether the respondent has damaged the property? OPP (4) Relief.

5. After recording evidence of parties, wished to be adduced by them and affording due chance of being heard to them, learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent is in bona fide need of disputed premises for the residence and consequently ordered the eviction of the petitioner vide an order passed on 7‑7‑1993 as indicated above. Issue No‑3, however, was found against her, while, Issue No.l us answered in the negative i.e. against the petitioner.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner, preferred an appeal, which, met the fate of dismissal and finding on Issue No.2, with regard to bona fide personal need of respondent, were, duly upheld and affirmed. Hence present petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

7. Claiming to be co‑owners. as legal heirs, of property in question, refuting exclusive ownership of respondent with regard thereto and disclosing pendency of a civil suit on such claim, Mst. Shama Mai alongwith five others applicants have moved an application under Order I. rule 10, C.P.C. seeking to implead them as party to this petition and array them as respondents

8. Same, in turn, has been opposed and resisted by the respondent

9. On the face of it, such application is an afterthought affair and figment of imagination of not only applicants, but also, of petitioner, obviously to cause prolongation of the matter. Without diving deep into the matter, lest, it may prejudice the case of either of the parties, suffice it to say, that the questions of ownership or title of a property is beyond the domain of a Rent Controller and extraneous to proceedings under Rent Restriction Ordinance (Ordinance VI of 1959) having no nexus therewith, as held consistently, and existence or otherwise of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is "sine qua non" for eviction proceedings. In the instant case, such relationship stands ' admitted and there is' no cavil to that effect. Very Rent Deed dated 21‑1‑1986 conclusively affirms the same. In any event, very claim in application has no bearing to the proceedings culminated into orders, sought to be impeached and set at naught. Application consequently merits rejection and is hereby turned down.

10. Turning to writ petition, sole point, invplvcd herein and as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect if the premises in question, being used as shop and thus non‑residential, can be got vacated on ground of bona fide personal need of landlord for residential purpose.' Sh. Muhammad Bashir v. Ghulam Rasool (1988 CLC 1696) has been relied upon. to answer the proposition in the negative.

11. Conversely Late Zahoor Ahmed v Asad Anees Ansari (1997 CLC 33) has been referred to stress that section I1 of Ordinance VI‑of 1959 debars any person from converting a residential building into a non‑residential building except with permission in writing of Rent Controller and even if residential premises had been let out for non‑residential purposes, landlord is entitled to seek eviction of tenant on ground that same is required by him/her bona fide and in good faith for residential purposes. 12. 1n wake thereof, case of respondent, old woman and widow of 60/70 years, issueless, all alone, and having no other, house and ‑property, presently residing with a relative has every right to occupy the building, which hitherto was, a house and a portion thereof is being used for commercial purposes in violation of law and public policy as expounded in Rana Khalil‑ur‑Rehman v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1983 Lahore 331).

13. I, therefore, feel no hesitation in observing that learned Rent Controller and learned Additional District Judge, while deciding material issue viz. Issue No.2, not only kept in view all relevant provisions of the Statute such as sections 13 and 11 of the Ordinance, but also, followed applicable judgments of august Superior Courts. Under said issue, in so far as, it relates to the character of the premises in dispute as residential, the findings are based on enunciation of law in 1981 CLC 562, 1980 SCMR 590, PLD 1965 Quetta 21 and PLD 1965 Lahore

385. Applying above principle laid down in PLD 1981 SC 246 to the case in hand, it can only be held that impugned orders are well warranted in law g and call for no interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.

14. Findings under same issue as to bona fide requirement of premises in dispute by landlady, which, otherwise also have not been shown to be vitiated on the basis of any accepted principle, also derive its foundation, on the enunciation of this point by Hon'ble Superior Courts and would on the same premises be not open to question in the Constitutional jurisdiction.

15. Be that as it may, writ petition could not be resorted to in face of specific and efficacious remedy of S.A.O. available to the petitioner on the basis of his own claim.

16. Viewed from any angle, instant petition merits dismissal and is hereby; dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.A./M‑326/L Petition dismissed