' MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, J.---Shabbir Hussain and five others have preferred the instant revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Against order dated 23-8-2011 whereby appeal of the petitioners against the order of learned Civil Judge Islamabad dated 30-9-2010, was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad.
2. Brief facts for consideration of this revision petition are that Ch. Abdul Rasheed predecessor of petitioners Nos.1 to 5, struck a lease agreement deed dated 26th November, 2005, with Abdul Majeed, plaintiff hereinafter referred to as respondent regarding leasing of House No,8-B, Street No,55, Sector F-7/4, Islamabad, owned by predecessor of petitioners. According to the terms of the said lease agreement deed, monthly rent of Rs,35,000 payable in advance was fixed between the parties subject to increase by 10% every two years. Lessee was to renovate the house as per terms of the lease agreement through his own expenses and at the time of vacation of the premises, the improvements were to remain and form part of the said property. Among other terms, it was resolved by the parties, vide Clause 9 of the said lease agreement deed, that the lessee would be authorized to assign its tenancy and keep any foreigner in the said house.
3. Pursuant to the said lease agreement dated 26th November, 2005, another lease agreement i.e, 2nd October 2008 was struck between the respondent and one Mrs. Barbara Schmidt (Federal Republic of Germany), hereinafter referred to as petitioner No,6, according to which the said house was leased out by the respondent to petitioner No,6 for a period of three years commencing from 1st November, 2008 on terms and conditions mentioned therein including monthly rent of Rs,150,000 followed by 10% increase each year.
4. It is necessary to mention that in line with the first rent agreement dated 25th November, 2005, predecessor of petitioners Nos.1 to 5 received monthly rent as agreed upon between him and the respondent. Later on, predecessor of petitioners Nos. 1 to 5, allegedly approached petitioner No,6 and succeeded in collecting the monthly rent from her which act of the predecessor of petitioners Nos.1 to 5 and petitioner No,6 has been questioned by the respondent terming the same as a result of collusion and ulterior motives.
5. Respondent/plaintiff, aggrieved by the said act of the predecessor of petitioners Nos.1 to 5 and petitioner No,6, therefore, instituted a civil suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction as well as recovery of Rs,9054740 on account of alleged loss and damages.
6. Along with the suit, respondent submitted an application for temporary injunction with a prayer to restrain the petitioners Nos.1 to 5 from interference in peaceful possession of the petitioner and alienation of the same till final disposal of the suit. Another application was also submitted by the respondent with a prayer to direct the petitioner No,6 Mrs. Barbara Schmidt to deposit the rent in Court.
7. Learned Civil Judge 1st Class vide judgment and order dated 30-9-2010, accepted the application for deposit of rent and directed petitioner No,6 to deposit the amount of rent in future, in Court on or before the due date.
8. Application far temporary injunction was partially allowed 'as prayer for placing a bar on alienation of the suit property was discarded while directions in the shape of temporary injunction to avoid disturbing the peaceful possession of The respondent over the suit house were issued.
9. Dissatisfied from the said judgment and order, petitioners filed an appeal before the court of learned District Judge Islamabad, which was entrusted to and heard by the learned Additional District Judge Islamabad and which was, after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 23-8-2011.
10. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order, petitioners have preferred the instant revision petition.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned trial Court was having no jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit as the matter was within the domain of Rent Controller. That learned trial Court was neither vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the suit nor competent to pass orders regarding deposit of rent in Court or issue injunction with an object to restrain the petitioners Nos.1 to 5, from enjoying their own property. He further argued that the learned Appellate Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and as such the impugned order is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this court and liable to be set aside.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and scrutinized the record with his assistance.
13. Lease agreement dated 25th November, 2005 has been allegedly executed between the predecessor of petitioners Nos.1 to 5 and respondent (Messrs Laechen strasse 141 Frankfurt Germany). In pursuance of the said lease agreement deed, respondent has not only allegedly renovated the suit house from his own expenses but has also paid monthly rent in advance to the predecessor of petitioners Nos.1 A to 5. Therefore, prima facie, renting out the house to petitioner No,6 on enhanced rent seems quite in consonance with the terms and conditions laid down in the said agreement deed between the said parties.
14. According to the terms of the lease agreement deed, dated 2nd October 2008, the petitioner No,6 was to pay monthly rent to the respondent and, her deviation from the terms of the said agreement, by diverting and paying the rent to a third party, and stranger to the agreement makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners and in favour of respondent. Predecessor of petitioners Nos.1 to 5, by entering into a lease agreement with the respondent and, in furtherance thereof, accepting advance monthly rent from the respondent, quite in consonance with the terms of the agreement and, allowing the respondent to spend and invest his own earnings also, prima facie, entitles the respondent to knock at the door of the civil court and seek restraint orders with an object to preserve the terms of the agreement and its infringement disadvantageous to his interest. Apart from prima facie case, emerging from the above, balance of convenience was also in the grant of temporary injunction as allowing payment of rent to a stranger, instead of a party claiming protection of the terms of agreement, would certainly amount to putting and pushing the respondent seeking injunction into a state of inconvenience. Additionally party subsequently found entitled to the claim can conveniently receive the same from Court.
15. Maintainability of the suit was also questioned on the ground that the suit was not competent as the same was instituted by a person not authorized by the "Company". The question. Agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners is yet to be taken and settled by the learned trial Court and as such same cannot be allowed to be agitated for the first time before this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction,
16. No illegality or irregularity warranting interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court was pointed out nor material irregularity or illegality is evident from the record of the case as such this revision petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed in limine.