1994 PLP 935 (CLC)

First Rent Appeal No. 429 of 1991, decided on 17th October, 1991 ‑‑‑‑Ss. 15, 21 & 23‑‑‑Stay of ejectment proceedings‑‑‑Vacation of stay‑‑ Intervenor had claimed that ejectment application filed by landlord against original tenant in respect of premises in question and ejectment order passed therein could not bind it as it was not a party to ejectment application against tenant as original tenant had returned possession of premises to landlord and by mutual consent between landlord and original tenant, tenancy was handed over to it‑‑‑Landlord denied mutual transfer of premises to intervenor and alleged that intervenor had no concern whatsoever with the premises‑‑ Landlord had further contended that sub‑tenant against whom ejectment order was passed and intervenor were sister concerns and intervenor had been falsely set up by sub‑tenant and intervenor had knowledge of ejectment proceedings from the very beginning‑‑‑Landlord had alleged that if claim of intervenor was true and bona fide, it could have come to contest proceedings long before passing of ejectment order‑‑‑Rent Controller dismissed application of intervenor to implead it as party in proceedings on ground that it and sub‑tenant against whom ejectment order was passed, were sister concerns and that intervenor had notice of ejectment case and its silence for nine years reflected adversely on its bona fides ‑‑‑Intervenor having no prima facie case, order vacating interim order, was rightly passed by Rent Controller. Hafiz Abdul Baqi for Appellant. Mian Mushtaque for Respondent No.l. C.M.A. No.1009 of 1991 is an application for stay of the eviction proceedings whereupon notice was ordered and interim stay was granted, subject to deposit of monthly rent, on 29‑8‑1991. C.MA. No.1263 of 1991 is an application for vacating the interim stay. Affidavits and counter‑affidavits have been filed with these applications including a number of documents. The contention of Mr. Hafiz Abdul Baqi, Advocate for the appellant, is that M/s. Azmatullah Trading Company Limited, who were the original tenants of State Life Insurance Corporation, had returned the possession of the rented premises and by mutual consent between both of them the tenancy was handed over to the appellant M/s. Azmatullah (Pvt.) Limited, which fact was stated by respondent No.3 in his written statement dated 31‑5‑1982. Hence the ejectment application filed against respondent No.l in respect of these rented premises, and the ejectment order passed therein cannot bind the appellant as he was not a party to the said ejectment application.

2. As against this Mr. Mian Mushtaque, Advocate for respondent No.l, contended that respondent No.l had filed this ejectment case in respect of disputed rented premises against respondent No.2 who was the original tenant and respondent No.3, who was sublessee. He has denied that this rented premises was mutually transferred to the appellant as alleged by him. According to him, the appellant had no concern whatsoever with this rented premises. The ejectment order was passed against respondent No.3 on 20‑1‑1991 and the appellant has been falsely set up by respondent No.3. In fact the appellant and respondent No.3 are sister concerns and their directors are common and members of the same family. Hence the appellant had knowledge of the ejectment proceedings right from 1982 up to 1991. If their claim was true and bona fide they would have come to contest the proceedings long before the passing of the ejectment order.

3. He has also complained that respondent No.3 was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs.14,18,591.28 and the appellant has filed this appeal only to protract the unauthorised possession of respondent No.3 and to harass, respondent No.] without paying any rent. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application under Order 1, R.10, C.P.C. filed by the appellant on the ground, inter alia, that the appellant and respondent No.3, being sister concerns and their directors being common and at least members of the same family the appellant had notice of the ejectment case and silence on this for p nine years reflects adversely on their bona fides. The order of the learned Rent Controller appears to be based, on good reason. Hence the appellant does not appear to have prima facie case. I, therefore, dismiss CMA 1009 of 1991 and allow CMA 1263 of 1991, and vacate the interim stay granted on 29‑9‑1991. H.B.T./A‑1429/K buterim stay vacated.