' M.A. ZAFAR, J.---Present revision petition has been filed by Naeem-ud-Din Malik who is defendant No,1 in a suit for possession through specific performance of agreement filed by Muhammad Farooq Butt, Masood Akhtar Butt and Messrs Briter Chemicals (respondents Nos. 1 to 3).
2. The suit for Specific Performance of agreement to sell, dated 20-6-1991 relates to a part of property commonly known as 57, Circular Road, Lahore and during the pendency of the said suit an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Seeking multiple reliefs was filed by Messrs Carwan Goods Transport Company who is tenant under the petitioner in the suit property for being impleaded as a party as there is condition in the agreement that the premises is also to be got vacated from the Carwan Goods Transport Company after making payment of Rs,3,50,000.
3. Learned Civil Judge, Lahore vide orders, dated 8-9-2007 accepted the application filed by Messrs Carwan Goods Transport Company which order has been assailed through the present revision petition.
4. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a tenant in possession of the suit property is neither a necessary nor a proper party in a suit for Specific Performance of agreement.
Reliance is placed on Aziz Muhammad and others v. Neka and others (1986 M LD 1936 Lah.) and Miss Naghmana Roohi v. Messrs UBL (1988 CLC 2014).,
5. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 while defending the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge submits that there is clause-6 in the agreement in which the present petitioner and another have agreed to return the amount of Rs,3,50,000 to Messrs Carwan Goods.
He further submits that if Messrs Carwan Goods are not impleaded as a party in the suit, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 plaintiffs would be unable to get possession from them despite the decree passed in their, favour regarding the possession through Specific Performance of agreement.
6. Learned Civil Judge while passing the impugned order has held that though a tenant is not necessary party to be impleaded in the suit but due to possession lying with him he is treated a proper party and in case suit is decreed further controversy/dispute regarding rent and suit of possession may be arisen against the said Company so in order to avoid further complication and effective adjudication of the suit the said Company is a proper party to be impleaded.
7. The approach of the learned Civil Judge to implead a tenant as a party in a suit for Specific Performance of agreement is totally disregard to the law laid down by the superior Courts. He erred in passing the impugned order despite holding that a tenant is not a necessary party. Even in a decree for possession through Specific Performance of agreement a tenant cannot be ousted from the premises straightway and the rights of the tenant is protected under Order XXI, Rule 36, C.P.C.
And he will become tenant of a person in whose favour decree is passed and who has become owner of the same. A tenant holds partially on his own behalf and partially on behalf of a person from whom he drives title the result would be to the extent that he holds on his own behalf he would not be dispossessed and tenant cannot be physically dispossessed as according to the terms of his tenancy he has right to continue his possession as tenant but the decree-holder will get what is called ownership of property and constructive possession. Reliance can be placed on Pir Abdullah Shah and 8 others v. Humayon and 5 others (PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lahore 1054).
8. The learned Civil Judge while passing the impugned order has acted in excess of jurisdiction vested with it and has committed material irregularity. Resultantly, civil revision is allowed and the impugned order, dated 8-9-2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge impleading Messrs Carwan Goods Transport Company as party in a suit is set aside, there will no order as/ to costs. Since suit is pending for the last five years, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial on orB before 30-6-2009.