MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL
As common questions of law and facts arc involved in Writ Petitions Nos.2401/89, 2402/89 and 2403/89 they are being disposed of by this single order.
2. Muhammad Jahangir petitioner in all the three cases has challenged the order, dated 25‑2‑1989 whereby respondent No.2/Rent Controller, Lahore declined to implead him as a respondent in three ejectment petitions filed by Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No.1 herein, against Mrs. Zamar, Paijay Shah and Manzoor Ahmed. hereinafter referred to as tenants. His case was that being in possession of the disputed property bearing No.S‑VIII‑71‑S/48 Kot Abdullah Shah, Mozang, Lahore he was entitled to be impleaded as a respondent in the ejectment petitions. Muhammad Iqbal respondent/landlord resisted the applications of the petitioner on the plea that he was not ill possession, as alleged. With regard to possession of the disputed property the learned Rent Controller issued a Commission and after receiving the report to the effect that the petitioner was in possession of one room each of the tenements involved in ejectment petitions of Muhammad Iqbal respondent against Paijay Shah and Mrs. Zaman and that the said tenants were in possession of the properly `till last two three months and that they had vacated the property few months before the date of visit of the learned local commission (sic), observed that he was not in possession of the property at the time of institution of the ejectment petitions which were filed on 20‑7‑1988 and dismissed the applications of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 25‑2‑1989.
3. Ch. Inayat Hussain, the learned counsel for Muhammad Jahangir petitioner, has argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to dispose of the applications of the petitioner in all the three ejectment petitions by a joint order. The contention being raised is without any merit. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had objected to the issuance of commission by the learned Rent Controller to Mr. Nayyer Iqbal Ghauri, Advocate to visit the spot and report about the existence or otherwise of petitioner's possession over the disputed house. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any jurisdictional error on the part of the learned Rent Controller in passing his order, dated 25‑2‑1989 on the report of the learned Local Commissioner without objection by the petitioner in that behalf.
4. It was next contended that the learned Rent Controller did not apply his own independent mind to the facts of the case while observing that Muhammad Jahangir petitioner was not in possession of the disputed house at the time of institution of the ejectment petitions by Muhammad Iqbal respondent. According to the learned counsel, the learned Rent Controller is in error in placing implicit reliance on the report of the learned Local Commissioner in non‑suiting the petitioner. The contention is devoid of any force. The issuance of commission by the learned Rent Controller was with a view to resolving the controversy about petitioner's possession over the disputed house and he himself having been the force behind the issuance of commission and having also participated in the consequential proceedings taken by the Local Commissioner, can ill‑afford to challenge the adverse result of the. said proceedings before this Court m its Constitutional jurisdiction. See Ghulam Mohi‑ud‑Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1964 SC 829). It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has the effect of depriving the petitioner of his right to defend his title to the. disputed property during the pendency of a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in the Civil Courts against Muhammad Iqbal respondent and others in which even an order directing the maintenance of status quo regarding possession of the petitioner is also in existence. According to the learned counsel, Muhammad Jahangir petitioner is the owner of the disputed house and being a landlord qua the tenants he has illegally been refused to be impleaded as a respondent in the ejectment petitions. I am afraid, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the contention being raised has little merit. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was in possession of the disputed house at the time of the institution of the ejectment petitions by Muhammad Iqbal respondent against his tenants. The dispute about title to the disputed house betwixt the parties in the civil suit will, o[' course, be resolved at that level and in the event of the petitioner coming out successful in the civil litigation he will be entitled to available relief at that juncture. The learned lent Controller was within the four corners of his jurisdiction in resolving the disputed question about the possession of the petitioner as a prerequisite for the disposal of the petitioner's applications under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. in the proceedings before him. No illegality much less a jurisdictional error has even so much as been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to justify any interference in the impugned order in these proceedings.
5. In view of the above discussion these petitions are found to be without any merit and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
A.A./ M‑285/L Petitions dismissed.