' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---Zaheeruddin and Raeesuddin have filed this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, through which they have challenged the interim order of the Rent Controller/Civil Judge-V, D.I. Khan, dated 24-10-2005 vide which the application filed by Mst. Zaitoon Bibi Respondent No,2 in a pending eviction petition between Mian Saqib and Zaheeruddin was dismissed. The petitioners have also impugned the order of the learned Additional District Judge-III, D.I. Khan respondent No,4 as he, while acting as appellate authority under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, dismissed the appeal of Mst. Zaitoon Bibi aforesaid vide order, dated 2-10-2007.
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the cast are that Mian Saqib Respondent No,1 brought an eviction application against the petitioners in the Court of Rent Controller which is pending disposal. During the pendency of the application a dispute arose between the parties regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and finally the matter came to this Court in Writ Petition No,287 of 2005, decided on 15-1-2007 wherein, by the mutual consent of the parties, it was held that the learned Rent Controller will frame a preliminary issue with respect to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and after recording of evidence will decide the matter.
3. The matter was pending adjudication between the parties when in the meanwhile Mst. Zaitoon Bibi respondent No,2 submitted an application on 24-9-2005 praying therein that she has a share in the suit property and thus, being a necessary party, she be impleaded as such in A the eviction proceedings pending between Mian Saqib and Zaheeruddin. The learned Civil Judge-V, D.I. Khan as Rent Controller, vide order, dated 24-10-2005 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the data available on the record, dismissed the application.
4. Mst. Zaitoon Bibi, being aggrieved, filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No,9 of 2005 which came up for hearing before the learned Appellate Court namely Aurangzeb Khattak, Additional District Judge-III, D.I. Khan and the learned Appellate Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, concurred, with the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal of Mst.
Zaitoon Bibi respondent No,2 vide order, dated 2-10-2007. Now the petitioners have impugned the above said orders through the instant writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Rent Controller was seized of the matter and certain passing on remarks have been made in the impugned orders that Mian Saqib respondent No,1 is the landlord, in spite of the fact, that the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was sub judice between the parties.
6. We have gone through the record of the case and are of the considered view that this writ petition is not maintainable. The application for impleadment of Mst. Zaitoon Bibi respondent No,1 had been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, and her appeal before the appellate authority also failed. Thus, she was the aggrieved person to have impugned the two orders in writ petition.
She has never challenged the impugned orders and the petitioners are not aggrieved persons within the meanings of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The grievance of the petitioners, that while dictating the facts of the case the learned lower fora by passing on remarks have held that Mian Saqib was landlord, is without any substance as earlier stated that vide order, dated 15-1-2007 in Writ Petition No,287 of 2005 this Court has specifically held with the mutual consent of learned counsel for the parties that the learned Rent Controller will frame a preliminary issue and after affording an opportunity to the parties of leading evidence will decide the said issue. That order is still intact and the learned Rent Controller would decide the matter in due course of time.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, there is no force in the instant writ petition which is dismissed in limine.