PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J.---The case in hand has a chequered history, in fact this is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round, the matter attained finality up to this Court with the rejection of civil revision petition against the judgments and decrees passed by lower Courts, whereupon an execution petition was filed before the learned Civil Court, wherein,, present petitioner Muhammad Saeed moved an objection petition, which was allowed by Lower Court regarding possession of the disputed property. However, the appellate Court reversed the findings of learned lower Court and his objection petition was rejected, which order has been assailed through this civil revision.
2. Briefly stated facts as those emerge out of this civil revision are that Mehmood ul Hassan (deceased), predecessor in interest of respondent was owner of Property No,145-B/C situated at Gulgasht Colony Multan, who as per rent deed, dated 14-12-1995 had given the disputed property to respondent No,2 Rana Khalil on rent and also handed over the possession of the same to him.
Mehmood ul Hassan B deceased filed an ejectment petition against respondent No,2 Rana Khalil before the learned Rent Controller, Multan on 2-2-1999 (Annexure "F" of the civil revision petition).
Muhammad Saeed petitioner moved an application on 6-2-1999 for being impleaded as party on the basis of agreement to sell (which was throughout denied by the respondents) (Annexure "G") of the Civil Revision Petition.
3. On 21-4-1999, predecessor in interest of the respondents vehemently denied the execution of any Iqrar Nama through written reply whereas learned Rent Controller, Multan dismissed the application of the petitioner, dated 3-12-2000. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties accepted the ejectment petition of predecessor in interest of the respondents vide order, dated 19-6-2001 (Annexure H) of the petition, where against an appeal was filed by petitioner before the learned District Judge, Multan which to was dismissed vide order, dated 12-12-2002 (Annexure M of the Civil Revision Petition). Since the order of the learned Rent Controller attained finality, therefore, Mehmood-ul-Hassan predecessor in interest of the respondents filed execution petition regarding possession against tenant, Rana Khalil on 6-1-2003 (Annexure "OR") in the Court of learned Civil Judge Multan, who issued notices through registered AD telegram etc. And also directed for proclamation in the newspaper. Since none appeared before the learned Executing Court nor any objections were filed, nor anyone appeared on behalf of judgment-debtor, therefore, vide order, dated 2-5-2003, the learned Executing Court issued warrants of possession and simultaneously passed orders for breaking the locks with the aid of police (Reference to page 72 of the Civil Revision). On 3-5-2003 the Bailiff of the Court after delivering the possession to the decree holder Mehmood-ul-Hassan submitted the report before the learned Rent Controller by mentioning therein that one Rana Qamar Hussain was found available at the spot who acknowledged that he was living there under the authority of the judgment-debtor and that he was running an academy there. The above said Rana Qamar Hussain was allowed to shift luggage from the property in dispute who acknowledged on the back side of the warrant that he had received his luggage and has handed over the possession of the house in question to the decree-holder Mehmood ul Hasan, (Page 78 of the titled civil revision).
4. On 6-5-2003, petitioner Rana Muhammad Saeed filed application under Order XXI, Rule 100 read with section 103, C.P.C. Seeking restoration of possession in the Court of learned Executing Court which is shown as Annexure "Q" in the Civil Revision Petition, wherein, he stated that he had filed a Writ Petition No,9725 annexure M/1 against the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Multan (Annexure M) whereupon this Court issued an interim injunction on 20-12-2002. The learned trial Court in view of order passed by this Court regarding maintaining status quo allowed objection petition and passed an order regarding restoration of possession, dated 28-5-2003. The respondents filed an appeal on 30-5-2003 against the aforesaid order of learned Executing Court vide which he restored the possession of respondents on 3-6-2003 while agreeing with the plea of respondents that since the matter was pending before this Court, therefore, it is fOr this Court to decide whether stay order was issued on 20-12-2002 till 28-1-2003 and whether the same was in the field on 3-12-2003 on which date possession was delivered. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order, dated 3-6-2003 passed by learned Lower Appellate Court.
5. It is inter alia contended that the petitioner being owner in possession of the said property in dispute, no ejectment petition could be filed by any other person without impleading the petitioner as party; that the ejectment petition was filed with mala fide intentions and for ulterior motives to get the ejectment orders regarding the property in dispute, in absence of the petitioner and that the learned Rent Controller committed an illegality in passing the impugned order as the petition before him was not competent because it was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the executing Court has the jurisdiction to entertain plea of the petitioner and rightly proceeded to restore possession of the disputed property to him.
6. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents while vehemently opposing the submissions made at Bar submits that the petitioner was not in possession of the property and he through his general attorney sold it out to the respondent and Rana Khalil was a tenant under the respondent; that in the earlier round of litigation, the matter stood concluded by this Court and the petitioner with mala fide intentions and for ulterior motives under the garb of objection petition wanted to re- open the past and closed chapter. It is further averred that the petitioner throughout has been concealing substantial facts as he never mentioned about filing of another Writ Petition bearing No, 9725 of 2002 before another Bench which too had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 15-10- 2003; that the petitioner with mala fide intention and for ulterior motives wants to take possession of the disputed property on the basis of bogus and time barred agreement to sell, whereas, according to law neither any person on the basis of agreement to sell can become party in a rent petition nor he can take possession; that the petitioner wants to usurp the property of his real sister Mst, Shamim Akhtar (wiliow and other legal heirs of deceased Mehmood-ul-Hassan) who are in England since_ ,long on the basis of bogus agreement to sell through frivolous litigation; that the agreement to sell by itself does not create any right or title and the only remedy for the petitioner was to file a suit for specific performance in support of his contention. Places reliance upon PLD 1999 Supreme Court of Pakistan 1101, 2004 SCM R 1654, 2000 SCM R 242 and 2002 M LD 384. Lastly it is contended that since the possession delivered to the respondents under the orders of learned Executing Court was not taken from the petitioner, therefore, had no legal right to file objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 100 and S. 103 of the C.P.C. Before the learned trial Court which remedy is available only to such persons who are dispossessed illegality. Places reliance upon 2003 SCM R 1014, 1985 SCMR 381, 1987, 565, thus prays that the civil revision may be dismissed.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. The petitioner basis his claim upon agreement to sell. There is no denying to the fact that no sale deed was ever executed by the respondents in his favour. By now it is well-settled proposition of law that agreement to sell per se creates no rights in favour of a person and the only right which is available to such a person is to file a suit for specific performance. It is also well-settled proposition of law that a tenant, taking over possession as such has to vacate the premises obtained by him on the basis of such a tenancy and thereafter if his suit is decreed for specific performance, he can take the possession back on the strength of judgment and decree so passed by the learned civil Court. In the case in hand, I find that the petitioner was not even a tenant and had no right to file any objection petition. The possession of the house in question was thus rightly handed over to the respondent by the learned Executing Court. I also find that through suppression of fact he was successful in obtaining a stay order from this which was allowed to him for one date of hearing only, which was never extended, which order was misconstrued by him as also by the learned Courts below. I am also not satisfied with the bona fides of the petitioners, I find force in the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents that by engaging the respondents in false and frivolous litigations, the petitioner wants to F usurp the property owned and possessed by his own real sister, a widow and her orphan children. In view of above; I find no force in this civil revision which being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.