1987 PLP 565 (SCMR)

Muhammad Yaqub v. Abdur Rahim 1968 S C M R 734 and Ghulam Mujtaba v. Naeema Khanum 1985 S C M; R 38 rel. Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th August, 1986. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH,J.‑‑These four petitions filed by Taj Muhammad, A. Mammi, Shamsher Qadir and Abdul Habib arise against the consolidated judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court, dated 27‑2‑1986, whereby their Revision Applications were dismissed.

2. Ali Hassan Manghi and others, the respondents, are the owners of Property No. 28/F.T.2 McLean Road, Karachi. It was occupied by Mrs. Khurshid F. Minwala as a tenant. The respondents brought an ejectment petition against Mrs. Khurshid on the ground of default in the payment of rent, subletting and illegal construction. The petition was contested by Mrs. Khurshid who refuted the grounds taken by the landlords in the ejectment petition. In her written statement she also admitted that the petitioners are the sub‑lessees but they were not arrayed as respondents in the ejectment petition. After the contest the respondent succeed in getting an ejectment order against Mrs. Khurshid vide order of the Rent Controller, dated 19‑8‑1974. This order was challenged by Mrs. Khurshid by way of an appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi, on 30‑10‑1975 for non‑prosecution. No further step was taken by Mrs. Khurshid. Thus, the order of her ejectment from suit property attained finality. After sometime the respondent started execution proceedings and in the said proceedings the possession of the flat of Mrs. Khurshid was taken over. The petitioners, however, could not be proceeded against because they had filed an objection petition in the executing Court under Order XXI, Rules 99, 100 and 103 read with section 151, C.P.C. This objection petition was resisted by the respondents, as a result of which issues were struck. evidence produced by the parties recorded by the trial Court and ultimately the objection petition was dismissed on 20‑5‑1979 holding that since the petitioners had no right of their own to hold the property, they were bound by the order of ejectment. The appeal of the petitioners and their revision were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi and the High Court on 2‑8‑1982 and 27‑2‑1986.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned orders and we find that the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below are unexceptionable. Admittedly the petitioners are the sub‑lessees and they were inducted in the suit tenements without the consent of the landlords. Therefore, they have no right to remain in the occupation of the demised premises on the ejectment of the tenant and they are bound by the order of ejectment passed against the tenant. Reliance in this respect is placed on Muhammad Yaqub v., Abdul Rahim 1986 S C M R 734 and Ghulam Mujtaba v. Naeema Khanumi 1985 S C M R

38. Another ground on which these petitions can be dismissed is that none of the petitioners fulfil the requirements of Order XXI, Rules 99, 100 and 103, C.P.C. Thus, their very objection petition was misconceived and so were the appeal and revision. In view of the above, the petitions have no merit and are dismissed. M.I.T./T‑1/S Petitions dismissed