' SHAHJI RAHMAN KHAN, J.---Through this writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner, Qayyum Nawaz son of Malik Haji Rabnawaz, has sought the indulgence of this Court to set at naught the judgments and decrees, dated 7-10-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge-II/Rent. Controller D.I. Khan in favour of respondent No,1 against the petitioner which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge-I, D.I. Khan vide order, dated 12-2-2005.
2. Facts of the case giving rise to this petition in brief are that Mst. Zubaida Bibi, respondent No,1 had sought for eviction of Qayyum Nawaz, son of Shah Nawaz, respondent No,2, through an application -filed under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in the Court of Civil Judge-II/Rent Controller from the suit house situated in Chah Peepal Wala, Darban Road, D.I. Khan. According to the averments made in the petition, one Niaz Ali Khan was the original owner of the suit house from whom it was purchased by Mst. Zubaida Bibi through a registered Deed No,1923, dated 12-8-2000, where Qayyum Nawaz son of Shah Nawaz was residing as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs,1,200 which he continued to pay to Mst. Zubaida Begum, but subsequently, he stopped the payment of rent to her and thus she filed the eviction application against him, who contested the same by filing replication thereto and the divergent pleadings of the parties gave rise to the framing of as many as six issues including the relief. After the examination of Patwari Halqa and Registry Moharrir, the petitioner, Malik Qayyum Nawaz son of Malik Haji Rabnawaz, applied to the said Court for his impleadment as party/respondent No,2 on the ground that he had purchased the suit house through registered deeds Nos. 2140 and 2141, both, dated 28-9-2003 from Qayyum Khan and Riaz Ali which was allowed vide order, dated 8-1-2004. After closing statement of the petitioner Mst.
Zubaida Bibi on 17-2-2004, respondent No,2, was directed by the Court to adduce his evidence who produced two witnesses and requested for summoning of two other witnesses, named Qayyum Khan and Riaz Ali but their attendance could not be procured A on their given addresses and thus on 5-5-2004, respondent No,2 was directed to adduce his remaining evidence but despite repeated directions he failed to do so and, therefore, on 29-5-2005 by invoking the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., his defence was struck-off. Thus respondent No,1 was proceeded against ex parte while the defence of respondent No,2 was struck off under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. And the learned trial Court passed decree in favour of Mst. Zubaida Bibi and respondent Qayyum Khan son of Shahnawaz Khan, (i) was declared as tenant under Mst. Zubaida Bibi with the direction to hand over vacant possession of the suit house to her within thirty days and (ii) that he i,e, the said respondent Qayyum Khan shall pay rent of the suit house from March, 2001 till 30th September, 2004 (43 months) @ Rs,1,200 per month, which was upheld in appeal as mentioned above hence this writ petition.
3. Mr. Muhammad Kamran Khan Niazi, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the suit house was purchased by the petitioner vide registered Sale-deed No,2141, dated 26-9-2003 and that their evidence was closed by the Rent controller in violation of Rule 3 of Order XVII of the C.P.C. And thus his judgment based thereon is illegal, against the facts, not sustainable and liable to be reversed.
4. Mr. Nasrullah Khan Gandapur, learned counsel for respondent No,2, Qayyum Nawaz Khan, has supported the petitioner's case and denied the ownership of respondent No,1, Zubaida Bibi.
5. Mr. Akbar Ali Khan, learned counsel for Mst. Zubaida Bibi, respondent No,1, has opposed the writ petition on the grounds that no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner and he having already availed off an alternate and adequate remedy by filing suit No,1/1 of the year, 2004, titled Malik Qayyum Nawaz v. Niaz Ali Khan, Mst. Zubaida Bibi and Sub-Registrar, which is pending adjudication, has no locus standi to file the present writ petition.
6. We have given our dispassionate consideration to the materials available on record in the light of arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The admitted facts are that Mst. Zubaida Bibi, respondent No,1 herein had purchased the suit house vide registered Sale-Deed No,1923 attested on 12-8-2000 who filed ejectment application against Qayyum Nawaz Khan, respondent No,2 herein on 29-11-2002 before the Rent Controller D.I.
Khan. During its pendency, the petitioner Malik Qayyum Nawaz, purchased a house vide deed No,2141, dated 26-9-2003. Needless to mention here that the boundaries and areas of the houses purchased by Mst. Zubaida Bibi and Malik Qayyum Nawaz petitioner are quite different. On the basis of above-referred deed, the petitioner Malik Qayyum Nawaz on 12-12-2003 applied for impleadment as party in the ejectment application of Mst. Zubaida which was allowed by order, dated 8-1-2004. After closing evidence of Mst. Zubaida Bibi, the petitioner Malik Qayyum Nawaz was directed to produce his evidence who on 9-3-2004 produced two witnesses but subsequently despite warning on several, dates, he failed to produce his remaining evidence and thus on 29-5- 2004 his evidence was closed under Rule 3, Order XVII, C.P.C., whereafter the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:--
(a) Respondent No,1 is declared as tenant under petitioner and both the respondents are liable to hand over vacant possession of the suit house to petitioner within thirty days.
(b) Respondent No,1 Qayyum Khan shall pay, rent of the suit house from March, 2001 till 30th September, 2004 (43 months) @ Rs,1,200 per month which comes to Rs,51,600 to petitioner.
8. The tenant/respondent No,2 herein Qayyum Khan did not file any appeal against the impugned order the learned Rent Controller, whereas the petitioner Malik Qayyum Nawaz preferred appeal thereagainst which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, D.I. Khan on 12-2- 2005. Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
9. It is evident from resume of the case that vide impugned order of the learned Rent Controller, no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner despite his failure to produce remaining evidence coupled with the fact that his defence was struck off. The evidence of Mst. Zubaida Bibi, respondent No,1, having gone unchallenged, the impugned order, dated 7-10-2004 was passed by the Rent Controller against respondent No,2 Qayyum Nawaz Khan and not against the petitioner.
Besides that, it was admitted by Muhammad Umar Khan, Moharrir of the Court of Civil Judge-II, D.I.
Khan while appearing as R.W.2 that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit No,1/1 of 2004 against the respondents herein. This being the state of materials available on record that no adverse order was passed against the petitioner vide impugned judgment of both the Courts below and that he has also filed a civil suit to protect his legal rights, if any, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that lc he has got no locus standi to file the present writ petition.
10. For what has been discussed above, we find no substance in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.