1979 PLP 514 (CLC)

The petitioner's plaint was rejected by the learned trial Court' o the 10th of February 1977 and that order was maintained in appeal by the District Judge, Sahiwal on the 11th of February 1978. Hence this petition.

2. The petitioner's suit in the plaint is that Shah Muhammad respon dent No. 1, who is the owner of the area in dispute, had given it on five years lease to Abdul Sattar defendant No. 3 on 23-2-1975 but later on defendant No. 1 gave it on lease to defendant No. 2 on 8-9-1975. In the meanwhile this land had been given by Abdul Sattar to the petitioner for a period of five years for which he had obtained the lease from Shah Muhammad. The subsequent lessee, defendant No. 2 began to threaten the petitioner with dispossession. Hence he prayed for permanent injunction to restrain defendants Nos. I and 2 from interfering with his possession for a period of 5 years.

3. This suit was contested inter alia on the ground of jurisdiction of the civil Court. The learned trial Court framed an issue to the follow ing effect:.- "Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?"

4. The issue was decided against the. petitioner on the ground that the matter was governed' by section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and for this reason the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The learned District Judge upheld the judgment on the same ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that section 77 will not apply to a dispute between the subsequent lessee or even the landlord on the one hand and sub-lessee art the other. As such the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Court; secondly he argued that the dispute was really between the petitioner and Gul Muhammad defendant No. 2 who wanted to dispossess the petitioner otherwise than in due course of law; thirdly he submitted that relief of injunction was foreign to section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, which should be strictly construed as held in Baru and others v. Niadar and others (A I R 1.942 Lah. 217) and as such the matter was within the jurisdiction of the civil Court; lastly he said that Order VII, rule 11 will not apply primarily for the reason that the plaint did disclose a cause of action and secondly that if there was any doubt about the question of ,any jurisdiction the matter could be referred to the High Court under section 100, Tenancy Act. In this connection the learned counsel also submitted that if the petitioner had no right under the owner of the property, he should be treated as in adverse possession of the property.

5. I agree with the learned counsel to the extent that section 77, Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 would apply in a dispute between the land lord on the one hand and the lessee on the other. If a decree is obtained by a land lord t, against the lessee the sub-lessee without being impleaded as a party would be bound by the decree and would be liable to ejectment under it. Looked at from this point of view it is not possible to give a finding against the petitioner that the matter was governed by section 77, Punjab Tenancy Act. 1887 particularly when it was a case of injunction against respondents Nos.1 and 2 to restrain them front ejecting the petitioner virtually otherwise than in due course of law. But this is not helpful to the petitioner. Since Abdul Sattar had no grievance against the subsequent lease executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, the petitioner himself has no locus stand' for he claims to be only a sub-tenant. No law or contract has been shown to me by the learned counsel to prove that the petitioner was at all entitled to remain in possession of the property even if Abdul Sattar was not interested in holding the possession or that Abdul Sattar was at all entitled to sub-let this property to the petitioner. Can the other band there is para. 25 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 115 which allows a tenant to be ejected on the ground of sub-letting the property under the tenancy.

6. In view of this the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The order of rejection of the plaint is, maintainable on this ground. The petition is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.