1989SCMR205 (PLP)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Petitioner claiming to be a landlord sought and obtained from the Rent Controller an order of eviction of the tenants from a portion of property bearing Municipal Plot No. L.R. 9/24‑P measuring 11401 sq. yards consisting of 285 tenements. The grounds on which he obtained their ajectment was default, non‑payment of rent, subletting and his own personal bona fide need. The tenants (Respondents Nos. 1 to 3) filed a First Rent Appeal No. 576/87 under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the Sind High Court. It was at this stage when their appeal was pending adjudication in the High Court that respondents Nos. 4 to 7 (referred to as Intervenors) filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party. There were four such applications. The learned Judge in the High Court allowed these applications observing as follows:‑‑ "In these circumstances as the interveners are the co‑owners and it will be in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings to join them as party, the applications are granted. Amended appeal to be filed within one week." The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against this order/judgment. There has been a Caveat by the respondents. Mr. Maroof Ali Khan, Advocate represents respondents Nos. 4 to. 7 and Mr. Faizanul Haque represents respondents Nos. 1 to 3, the tenants. We have decided after hearing both the parties to convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same. The following affidavit of the Intervenor Muhammad Anwar son of Imtiaz Khan will clearly establish that he was claiming the ouster of Nawabuddin as an owner and denying his title and interest:‑‑ "(i)??????? That I say that the property in question No. L R 9/24P IV‑P‑141 & 142 with buildings thereon and measuring 11401 sq. yards was put to auction by Settlement Authorities a big mansion and was purchased by 58 claimants through Nawabuddin, Respondent as their Attorney for the highest BID of Rs. 5,71,000." ?(ii)?????? I say that Nawabuddin was not a claimant himself and the entire transfer price was paid through compensation book of 58 claimants other than Nawabuddin and no amount has been paid by Responden , Nawabuddin." "(iii) I say that the Respondent Nawabuddin in collusion with one Haji Muhammad Ismail one of the legal heirs of late Nannay Khan who was one of the claimant purchasers of the said property filed Rent Case No. 1567/85 in the Court of Sind Civil Judge R.C. South Karachi against???????? the Appellants for their ejectment from the premises of Qamar Oil Mill. It appears that during the pendency of the Rent Case Nawabuddin and Muhammad Ismail illegally occupied portion of the premises of Qamar Oil Mill. The Rent Controller has allowed the ejectment application vide order dated 12‑4‑1987 and the above appeal is against the said order." "(iv) That I say that under law the entire property LR9/24P measuring 11401 square yards is a joint property of 58 claimants who have paid the transfer price through portionate to the price paid by them and the Respondent Nawabuddin had no share in the property and could not file ejectment application." Similar is the recital in the Application filed by Abdul Hamid Intervenor, Qayum Beg Intervenor, and Mst. Anjum Begum Intervenor. On these assertions by the Intervenors it cannot be said that they were joining the proceedings as co‑owners with Nawabuddin. They were actually setting up a title adverse to the Petitioner Nawabuddin, alleging against him fraud and collusion in exercising authority and power not possessed by him. On these allegations the intervenors cannot be considered to be either necessary or the proper parties, nor can the jurisdiction and forum of the Rent Controller be considered appropriate one for ventilating their grievance or for washing their dirty linen. In the circumstances we find that the assumption on which they have been impleaded is incorrect and their presence in the proceedings would not only B be improper but prejudicial to the purpose for which the Petitioner had been litigating before the Rent Controller. The appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set ~C aside, the application of the respondents for being impleaded as parties in the proceedings stands dismissed. No order as to costs. M.Y.H./N‑109/S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.