The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the jurisdiction was wrongly assumed by respondent No. 1, as appellant disputed the relation--ship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In fact the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that even respondent No. 3, has described the present appellant and other occupants of the property in question as unautho-- rised occupants and as such on the basis of the application moved by the respondent No. 3 before respondent No. 1, the provision of M. L. O. 20 were not at all attracted and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
2. Mr. M. Naim-ur-Rehman's, Advocate for the respondent No. 3, does not dispute the above contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant, as it is clear from the statement of the respondent No. 3 in the -R & P of the Court of respondent No. 1, which is before me.
3. I have gone through the R & P of the case received from respondent No. 2. In this R & P, I do not find any application, that was moved before the respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the proceedings against present appellant and other occupants of the said property were started under M. L. O.
20. However, I find the statement of respondent No. 3 on oath, in the last paragraph of the said statement reads as under; "I request your honour to order the unauthorised occupants of the entire premises of 254, Ingle Road, Karachi to vacate the premises forthwith and to hand it over to me on behalf of my son. All occupants are unauthorised and have no lease deeds and are also defaulters in rent. I require the premises for self-occupation as my present rented premises do not meet my requirement. I request you for the above reasons to issue necessary ejectment orders."
4. The above statement clearly shows, that according to the respondent No. 3, the nine persons mentioned by her in her statement are not the legal tenants of the premises in question, as all of them are unauthorised occupants, including the present appellant. This statement of respondent No. 3, prima facie shows, that the provisions of M. L. O. 20 were not at all applicable to the application 'moved by respondent No. 3, before respondent No. 2, as the said proceedings under M.
L. O. 20 are confirmed to dispute between the tenants and landlord. In view of the statement of respondent No. 3,1 prima facie, there is no relationship of landlord and pant between the parties and as such the respondent No. 1 could not have assumed jurisdiction under M. L. O. 20, without first deciding the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in the absence of such relation--ship existing between the parties, the respondent No. 1, could not have assumed jurisdiction under M. L. O. 20, which is clear from the very wording of the said M. L O. 20.
5. In view of my above conclusion, I am, of the opinion, that the order dated 14th November, 1977, passed by respondent No. 1 was without lawful authority and as such without jurisdiction, in view of the statement on oath of respondent No. 3, which is available in the R & P.
6. Therefore, I hereby allow the above appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 14th November, 1977, of respondent No. 1, as far as it relates to the present appellant, with no orders as to costs.
7. Before parting with the above appeal, I would like to make clear, that dispute, if any between, the parties about ownership of the property in question, cannot be agitated before the learned Rent Controller nor it could have been agitated before the respondent No. 1, under M. L. O. 20 and as such the parties are free to take whatever remedy is available to them in this connection.