Mst.BHAGHBHARI Versus KHAN IFTIKHAR AHMAD
Respondent No.1 alongwith his brothers and sisters purchased House No.I‑S‑I Block No.9, Sargodha through a registered sale‑deed dated 17‑4‑1979. A notice under section 13‑A of the Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was sent through registered acknowledgement due on 29‑12‑1979 to the petitioner No.1. On 1‑7‑1980 the respondent No.1 filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner No.1 for having made default in the payment of rent from 17‑4‑1979 to the date of application viz. 1‑7‑1980 and for personal need. She submitted a reply on 1‑9‑1980 admitting the tenancy but disputing the rate of rent. Reply to the notice under section 13‑A of the aforesaid Ordinance received by the respondent No.1 was placed or record marked 'C' and the petitioner No.1 was summoned to appear in Court to admit or deny the same. She did not appear. On 20‑4‑1981 she riled an application through her general attorney, her son petitioner No.2 for amending the written statement to include that besides her, her children were also the tenants of the house and they should be impleaded as a party. The application was rejected by the learned Rent Controller on 21‑6‑1981. She then filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 17‑5‑1981. Then her children, petitioners Nos.2 to 7 filed an application before the learned Rent Controller praying for being impleaded as a party to the ejectment application on the ground that they were residing in the house and were the tenants thereof. The application was rejected by the learned Rent Controller on 26‑7‑1981. So also the revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 10‑11‑1981. The learned Rent Controller, finally accepted the ejectment petition and directed the petitioner No.1 to vacate the house within one month. This is vide order dated 26‑1‑1982. Petitioner No.1 challenged this order by means of an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha on 19‑5‑1982. The petitioner No.1 alongwith her children petitioners Nos.2 to 7 have filed this Constitution petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended; firstly, that there was no default in the payment of rent. Secondly, that the respondent No.1 did not need the house for his personal use and lastly, that the petitioner No.1 was not the only tenant of the house but her children were also and that they, notwithstanding their efforts to be impleaded as party, having not been impleaded could not be ejected in pursuance of the ejectment order.
3. The two contentions about the default and personal need had, on the basis of evidence, been found in favour of the respondent No.1, the learned Additional District Judge has affirmed the findings. In view of the concurrent findings on the issues, no interference is called form exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that besides the petitioner No. 1, other petitioners Nos.2 to 7 were also in possession of the house and were tenants in their own rights on the demise of their predecessor‑in‑interest, the original tenant‑husband of petitioner No.1 and father of the other petitioners Nos.2 to 7, and they cannot be ejected in pursuance of the order of ejectment passed against petitioner No.1 alone, is a matter which requires production of evidence and the determination of the question as to whether the original tenant of the premises was Fazal Muhammad, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of the other petitioners Nos.2 to 7 and after his demise have they become tenants in their own rights. This question can be raised in the execution proceedings or otherwise in accordance with law. In these proceedings no adjudication is possible especially when the petitioners Nos.2 to Ts application for being impleaded as a party before the learned Rent Controller had been rejected on 26‑7‑1981 and their revision was dismissed on 10‑11‑1981 and they did not challenge these orders until the ejectment application against the petitioner I No.1 had been allowed and her appeal also been dismissed. The writ petition filed I on their behalf on 15‑6‑1981 against the orders of their non‑impleadment, in the circumstances, suffers from ]aches and cannot, therefore, be allowed.
4. Subject to what has been stated above, the petition is dismissed but, in the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
M.Y.H./3468/L Petition dismissed.