2008 PLP 583 (CLC)

ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.

Messrs Abdullah (Pvt.) Ltd., a builder company, by way of this constitutional petition, has challenged the order, dated 2-9-2005 passed by the Rent Controller-VIII, Karachi South, in Execution No.37 of 2004, re: Miss Sadaf Munawar v. Muhammad Amir confirmed by the appellate authority (Additional District Judge-VII, Karachi South) by its order, dated 27-2-2007 passed in Rent Appeal No.193 of 2005, re: Messrs Abdullah (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Miss Sadaf Munawar and Muhammad Amir, refusing to join them as a party and dismissing the execution application.

2. Briefly, the facts are that, by an Indenture of Sublease executed and registered on 20-2-1997, the petitioner sold a shop, bearing No.B-4, Iqbal Centre, Eidgah Maidan, M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, to the respondent No.1. In the year 2000, the respondent No.1 filed a Rent Case, bearing No.2028 of 2000, re: Miss Sadaf Munawar v. Muhammad Amir, for latter's ejectment, which was allowed and tenant's appeal, bearing Rent Appeal No.163 of 2004, was also dismissed by the appellate authority i.e. the Additional District Judge-VII, Karachi South. Thereafter, during the pendency of Execution Application, bearing No.37 of 2004, the petitioner intervened and requested for Dismissal of the execution application on the ground that the sublease in favour of the respondent No.1 had been determined due to violation of condition regarding payment of property tax and ground rent in time. The respondent No.1 denied violation of any condition and contended that her tenant, respondent No.2, after having himself failed in the litigation had set up the petitioner to frustrate the ejectment order passed against him. The Rent Controller, by order, dated 2-9-2005, dismissed petitioner's application mainly on the ground that the respondent No.2 could not be allowed to frustrate the ejectment order by such machination and that petitioner's contention about determination of sublease could be decided only in a civil suit, which had already been rejected. The Appellate Court, by its order, dated 27-2-2007, confirmed the Rent Controller's order for same reasons further holding that the petitioners were in collusion with the respondent No.2.

3. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.1 could not reap the fruit of ejectment order as, according to him, she had violated certain conditions of sublease is without any force. The respondent No.1 denied to have violated any condition of sublease and petitioners' Suit bearing No.1333 of 2002 seeking cancellation of sublease had already been rejected. There is also no force in the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioners can unilaterally determine the sublease and re-inter the property without any order or decree of any Court. Such a course, if permitted would simply promote lawlessness. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 114 and 114-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, according to which relief regarding determination of lease by forfeiture due to violation of any condition of lease is to be obtained by filing a civil suit. The argument of the learned counsel that it was not necessary to file suit for such relief is negated by petitioner's conduct of having already filed such suit. Moreover, Rent Controller's jurisdiction under section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is, limited only to the extent of questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the orders. He cannot assume the powers of a Civil Court to determine intricate questions of title coming purely within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. In the case of Jan Muhammad v. Saiyeda Khatoon and 5 others reported in 1996 MLD 1845 (Karachi), similar view was taken by this Court. Thus, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders of the Rent Controller as well as of the Appellate Authority and it was for these reasons, recorded now, that the petition was dismissed summarily by a short order passed on 22-3-2007. H.B.T./A-4/K Petition dismissed.