1991 PLP 1530 (SCMR)

ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑A plot measuring 9 marlas in Satellite Town, Rawalpindi, was allotted to Muhammad Amin who constructed a house on it. He sold it to one Haji Faiz Ali for a consideration of Rs.20,000 and delivered the physical possession to him. Haji Faiz Ali made a gift of the house in favour of Muhammad Sadiq, the predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners Nos.2 to 8 in February, 1965 and delivered the possession of the house to him. The said house was requisitioned by the Federal Government on 27‑5‑1975 from Muhammad Sadiq and its rent was paid to him till the year, 1976 when it was derequisitioned. At the instance of the petitioner No.1, the Federal Government again hired the said house from Muhammad Sadiq at the rate of Rs.400. On the death of Muhammad Sadiq, petitioners Nos. 2 to 8 became landlord. The respondent No.1 claiming to be the transferee of the house in dispute filed a suit against the respondents. Nos. 2 to 3 and Muhammad Sadiq seeking a declaration that he was the owner of the house and claimed recovery of Rs.3,200 on account of rent. The suit who contested by Muhammad Sadiq. The suit was withdrawn by respondent No.1 on 30‑7‑1987. The respondent No.1 also moved an ejectment petition against petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 before the Rent Controller. However, in view of the pendency of the said civil suit, the learned Rent Controller with the consent of the parties adjourned the ejectment petition vide order dated 9‑1‑

983. The respondent No.1 withdrew the civil suit with permission to file a fresh suit. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 30‑7‑1983. After having withdrawn the suit, the respondent No.1 got the ejectment petition restored but then withdrew the said petition which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18‑10‑1983. The respondent No. 1 again moved an ejectment petition on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 8 applied to the Rent Controller for impleading them as party but their request was rejected on 5‑11‑1983. The Rent Controller on 20‑11‑1983 dismissed the ejectment application holding that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties.

2. The respondent No. 1 went in appeal against the order dated 20‑11‑1983. The appellate authority accepted the appeal on 12‑5‑1985 and passed an ejectment order. The petitioners filed a Constitution petition challenging the q; order of the Additional District Judge. The Federal Government also assailed r:. the said order. Both the petitions were dismissed by the High Court on 20‑11‑1989.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent No.1 had himself filed a civil suit to determine the title of the said property but then withdrew it with permission to file a fresh suit. He did not file the fresh suit. The earlier application for ejectment was also withdrawn. Unless the title of the property was determined in the civil suit, fresh eviction application could not be filed. As there is a serious challenge to the title of respondent No.1, therefore, the first impression is that unless the title is determined in the Civil Court, ejectment petition could not be filed. The learned counsel has referred to Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad 1983 S C M R 1064. Leave is granted. Security Rs.2,500.

4. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire. Status quo to be maintained in the meanwhile. A.A./A‑707/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.