RASHID AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD IRSHAD

Chanan Din, predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellants filed an application for ejectment against the respondent. On his death the appellants applied to be impleaded as legal representatives. The Rent Controller rejected the application by observing that the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable and, therefore, the provisions of Order XXII, rule 3, C. P. C. could not be pressed into service. He also dismissed the application for ejectment. The appellants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal. This is a second appeal against that order.

2. The Rent Controller is an administrative Tribunal and not a Court as held in Khadim Mohyuddin v. Rehmat Ali (PLD1965SC459). The Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance except those under sections 15 (4) and 16 where certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been expressly made applicable. The provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure are thus not applicable and that being so the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller do not abate on the death of either the petitioner or the respondent. There is no` provision in the Rent Restriction Ordinance to say that in the event of the death of the petitioner the petition shall abate or that it is liable to be dismissed. The order of the Rent Controller dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner had died was, therefore, not warranted by law.

3. the next question which arises for determination is that if the petition could not be dismissed, could it proceed without impleading the legal representatives? The Civil Procedure Code is not applicable and, therefore, application under Order XXII to implead the legal representatives is not competent. Since, however, the petition for ejectment does not abate, nor can it be dismissed on the death of a party the principles of Order XXII can be invoked because the Rent Controller, with a view to deciding the matter before him, can adopt any procedure unless it is prohibited.

4. There is yet another aspect of the case. If Order XXII, C. P. C. is not applicable a suit or a petition in which the right to sue survives cannot be dismissed because the right, by operation of law, becomes vested in the legal representatives. If the legal representatives do not appear the petition can be dismissed for non‑prosecution. However, if the legal representative or anyone of them appears, the Court cannot refuse to substitute them for the deceased. In a case where the petitioner is represented by an Advocate the position becomes all the more simple. An Advocate enters into a contract with the suiter to conduct the proceedings. He may be obliged, according to the terms of the power of attorney, to conduct the case till it concludes.

On the death of a party the contract between the counsel and a client in such a case and where the right to sue survives does not come to an end. He, in such a situation, has the contractual rights and the obligations towards the legal representatives. Thus, even if the legal representatives are not expressly impleaded they shall be deemed in law to be the parties and the decision in the case will be in their favour or against them and not against a dead person. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge, dismissing the application and refusing to implead the legal representatives are not valid. They are set aside and the case is remanded to the Rent Controller for decision on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.

S. A. H Appeal allowed. Case remanded.