TARIQ JAVAID, J, --- This civil revision is directed against the order dated 16.1.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal whereby petitioner's appeal against order dated 1.6.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Sahiwal was dismissed.
2. The brief facts as .Narrated in the petition are that allegedly petitioners are tenants of the respondent No. 2 since last ten years and have been paying rents to him. It is further maintained that on first respondent's refusal to receive the rents he moved an application before the learned Rent Controller, Sahiwal for permission to deposit the rents in Courts which was granted vide order dated 1.6.2009 and since then the petitioners are depositing rents in Courts.
3. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed this petition and has maintained that .There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between, the respondent No. 2 and the petitioners. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 had rented out his property to the respondent No. 2 against whom an ejectment petition was filed long before 1.6.2009. The appeal was also dismissed and the execution proceedings are pending. It is maintained that that application for deposit of rents was collusive inasmuch as that both the respondents, in order to defeat the execution proceedings with mala fide intentions had entered into an agreement for sub-tenancy, which was expressly not permissible under the terms of tenancy between the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2.
4. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioners wherein it was alleged that the petitioners were tenant of the respondent No. 2 until 30.4.2013 and hence he may not be ejected illegally. An application for an interim relief was also filed wherein it was prayed that during the pendency of the suit the petitioner may not be ejected and ,the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1 be stayed. In the suit the respondent No. 1 who is the actual owner of the property and landlord vis-a-vis tenancy agreement between him and the respondent No. 2 was not impleaded as defendant. However, he joined the proceedings and resisted the same and maintained that the . Suit filed by the petitioners for permanent injunction was collusive and necessarily abuse of process of law inasmuch as that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the, respondent No 1. The respondent No. 2 was himself a tenant according to the terms of tenancy. He was not authorized to sub-let the rented premises and the suit has been filed after passing of the judgment and decree whereby the respondent No. 1 was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent Nb. 1.
5. Vide order dated 1.6.2009 an interim relief was granted to the present petitioners by the learned Trial Court. However, on appeal the interim order was vacated. In appeal the respondent No 1 maintained that the present petitioners were neither his tenants nor there was any relationship of landlord and tenant and a collusive suit has been filed after passing of the decree for ejectment against the respondent No. 2, which is mala fide on the face of it. The fact that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 had filed a collusive suit has been admitted by the first Appellate Court. It is also a matter of record that proceedings between respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were decided by the learned Rent Controller for ejectment of the respondent No. 2. It also appears that the sub-tenancy in favour of petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 appears to be a device to defeat the lawful decrees passed by the Courts below in the previous round of litigation. The present case appears to be one of gross misuse of process of law and the suit filed by the petitioners merit to be decided on a preliminary issue of maintainability. Reliance can be made to 1984 SCM R 689. The present petition having been filed in gross misuse of the procedure and law provided for redressal of grievances of the bona fide litigants is dismissed in limline. .