AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this appeal order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur has been called in question.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed an ejectment petition with regard to the non- residential building against the husband of the petitioner namely Sajjad Anwar on 1.10.2005 under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The ejectment petition was accepted vide order dated 12.12.2007. Sajjad Anwar filed an appeal which was pending before the lower Appellate Court.
During the pendency of the appeal Sajjad Anwar died. After his death on 25.1.2010 his widow Mst.
Rukhsana Sajjad filed an application for permission to be implead as sole appellant as her husband has died. It is stated in the application that there is no other legal heir of the deceased except the applicant as deceased was issueless. The application was contested and the learned first Appellate Court vide order dated 16.2.2010 dismissed the application and found that the appeal has abated, hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the light of Section 2(i) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the case-law reported as Majid Hussain and 5 others v.
Muhammad Rafique and another (1980 CLC,154) and Fazal Ahmed v. Ramzan Bibi (1984 CLC 2196) the order passed by the first Appellate Court is absolutely against the law and be set aside and the appeal be accepted.
4. On the other hand, respondent has supported the impugned order and relies upon the case-law titled Shafique Ahmad and others v. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Civil Judge and others (1988 SCMR 1656) and M, Amjad Bhutta and Co., etc v. Malik Abdul Majid Tiwana, District Judge, Sialkot and others (PLD 1990 Lahore 412).
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent and have perused the order with their able assistance.,
6. The case-law relied by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable to, the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is helpful for determination of question in issue before this Court. I am of the considered view that the widow after the death of her husband the original tenant came under the definition as given in subsection
(i) of Section 2 of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and findings of first Appellate Court that appeal has abated are against the law. .