' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.---This single order will dispose of Civil Revision No,519 of 2005 "Qari Abdul Karim etc. v. Mst. Farrukh Sultana etc.", Civil Revision No,520 of 2005 "Qari Abdul Karim etc. v. Mst.
Farrukh Sultana etc." Civil Revision No,521 of 2005 "Qari Abdul Karim etc. v. Mst. Farrukh Sultana etc."
Civil Revision No,522 of 2005 "Qari Abdul Karim etc. v. Mst. Farrukh Sultana etc."Civil Revision No,523 of 2005 "Qari Abdul Karim etc. v. Mst. Farrukh Sultana etc.", Civil Revision No,524 of 2005 "Qari Abdul Karim etc. v. Mst. Farrukh Sultana etc."
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of these revision petitions arethat respondents Nos. 1 to 5 filed an ejectment petition under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, before the learned Rent Controller Mianwali, Respondent No,6 who is admittedly a tenant in possession filed his written reply denying therein the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
3. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 claim ownership of the property on the basis of ex parte decree, dated 9- 1-1992, petitioners assailed the decree subsequently, by invoking provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The application was dismissed, which was challenged in appeal, wherein the case was remanded to the learned trial. Court for providing the opportunity of being heard to both the parties. The learned trial Court dismissed the application in the post remand proceedings.
4. The question of ownership of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 with regard to the suit property has attained finality. The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. For impalement as party in the array of respondents, claiming therein that the respondent No,6 is a tenant under him.
5. The learned trial Court dismissed the application and appeal filed against the order, was also dismissed on 17-2-2005. In the instant revision concurrent findings of the learned Courts below have been assailed where the request of the petitioner, for being imp leaded as party, was declined.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that relationship oflandlord and tenant exists between the petitioners and respondent No,6. Although the ownership of respondents Nos. 1 to 5, qua the disputed shop, is not being denied, yet paramount consideration is the determination of real landlord. Learned counsel for respondent No,6 has appeared and adopted the line of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 5 states that respondent No,6 has denied the relationship of tenant and landlord, therefore, it will be appropriate to ascertain the question of landlord and tenant relationship.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
9. The real controversy between the parties is the determination ofquestion of landlord tenant relationship. It has yet to be ascertained that between whom this relationship exists and who is the landlord. It will be appropriate to determine as to who is the landlord. The learned trial Court is directed to frame a preliminary issue and after recording evidence of the parties decide the same.
If the issue is decided, grievance of the petitioner shall stand automatically redressed.
10. Disposed of with the above observations.