1986 PLP 910 (MLD)

Abdul Ghaffar and others v. The State P L D 1982 S C 88; PLD 1981 Kar. 76 and Malik Inayatullah v. Muhammad Faryad 1982 C L C Faizanul Haq for Appellant. Nasiruddin Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th April, 1984. This First Rent Appeal has been filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 by one Muhammad Ishaque who is in occupation of Shops Nos.3 and 4 attached to Muhammadi Mosque Unit No‑10, Latifabad, Hyderabad. He is stated to have got possession of the above‑said shop from one Noor Muhammad in the year 1979.

2. On 21‑10‑1975, the respondent Salimullah filed Rent Case under section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 1959 before the Rent Controller and IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad against one Noor Muhammad on the ground of default. The rent case proceeded and on 16‑12‑1980 the Rent Controller allowed ejectment application and directed that respondent be given vacant possession within two months. Noor Muhammad did not file any appeal against the final order of the Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller, started execution proceedings when Muhammad Ishaque present appellant filed an application under Order XXI, rule 26, C.P.C. before the District Judge, If Hyderabad, in which he stated that Shops Nos.3 and 4, attached to Muhammadi Mosque has been notified as Waqf Property and that he started paying the rent to the Manager Waqf Property, Hyderabad,' who tried to eject him but he had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of Ilnd Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, therefore, the execution application has become infructuous. He prayed that execution be stayed. This application addressed in the name of District Judge was disposed of by the IIIrd Senior Judge, Hyderabad. The Senior Civil Judge has also in his order stated that application is not maintainable as the appellant objector is not tenant of the shops in dispute.

3. Mr. Faizanul Haq, Advocate for the appellant has contended that execution proceedings are illegal and the, appellant Muhammad Ishaque is tenant and as he was given premises by one Noor Muhammad.

4. Mr. Nasiruddin learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this application is not maintainable on the ground that in the name of appeal it is not clear against which order this appeal has been filed. The final order of the Rent Controller, dated 16‑12‑1980 has not been challenged. Moreover, this application after 10 months of final order is barred by limitation. He has relied upon a case Abdul Ghaffar and others v. The State P L D 1982 S C 88 on the point of limitation. He has also cited a case on the same point P L D 1981 Kar. 76, where it has been held that provision of section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 do not apply under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. He has also referred a case Malik Inayatullat, v. Muhammad Faryad 1982 C L C 2073 on the point of title of ownership and right of a tenant holding premises without any lawful authority adverse to the interest of the landlord. Mr. Faizanul Haq has failed to convince me, about the maintainability of this appeal. He has also not been able show from the memo of appeal as to which order he has challenged in filed the appeal. This rent case was finally decided and no appeal has been and even this appeal is not within time. Muhammad Ishaque appellant was not a party in the rent proceedings before the Rent Controller. A He has only appeared as an objector and filed application for which according to me has no locus stand. In my view this appeal is not maintainable. The memo of appeal does not show as to which order has been challenged even otherwise the impugned order on the objection filed by the appellant is not appeal-able I, find no merits in the appeal which is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed