' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Through this appeal under section 24 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, the appellant has assailed order dated 26-11-2005 passed by Rent Controller Multan Cantt.
Who accepted ejectment petition filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 for ejectment of LRs of Sh.
Muhammad Nawaz and Mirza Muzammil Ahmad Baig.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of instant FAO are that on 1-7-2002, respondents Nos.1 and 2 (landlords) filed an ejectment petition against Muhammad Nawaz and Mirza Muzammil Ahmed Baig on the ground of default and subletting part of premises to defendant No,2 without their permission. The ejection petition was contested by the respondents by filing written statement.
3. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed vide order dated 30-11-2002. In the meanwhile, vide order dated 21-9-2002, the defendants were directed to deposit the monthly rent in the court. The appellant Hashmat Taj moved an application on 2-7-2004 for impleading him as party in the proceedings on the ground that he was given the shop on rent by L.Rs, of Sh.
Muhammad Nawaz who was the initial tenant of the ejectment petitioners. The application was opposed by the ejectment petitioners as well as the respondents therein. On 25-6-2005, the ejectment petitioners filed an application under section 17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 to strike off right of defence of respondents for non-compliance of order of the court to deposit monthly rent in the court. Despite direction, the respondents failed to file reply to the said application. Since during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the defendants categorically admitted that the rent was not being deposited by the respondents but by Hashmat Taj, the ejection petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to vacate the premises within three months vide order dated 26-11-2005. The application of the appellant for impleading him party in the ejectment petition was also dismissed holding that the appellant, claiming the sub-tenancy during the pendency of the ejectment petition, had no locus standi vide same order dated 26-11-2005. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that respondent No,1 is owner of lease hold rights of Shop No,44-B situated at Aziz Bahtti Shaheed Road, Multan Cantt; that respondent No,1 rented out shop to one Sh. Muhammad Nawaz, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.3 to 7, through an agreement dated 2-9-1993; that since Sh. Muhammad Nawaz, as per agreement dated 2-9-1993, was authorized to sublet the shop to any person even at increased rent, he rented out the shop to appellant vide agreement dated 18-7-2003; that the appellant paid a sum of Rs,5,00,000 to Sh.
Muhammad Nawaz in this regard and established business in the shop; that the appellant is admittedly a sub-tenant of the property on the basis of agreement dated 18-7-2003; that the tenant Muhammad Nawaz as per agreement dated 2-9-1993 was authorized to sublet the shop to the appellant; that the appellant being sub-tenant was a necessary and proper party in the ejectment proceedings but learned Rent Controller dismissed his application for becoming party illegally and unlawfully; that the appellant made several application for supply of challan forms to him for depositing rent in the court but the same was not delivered to the appellant rather these were given to the actual tenants who wanted to cause damage to the appellant; that no opportunity to explain the delay in depositing the rent was given to the appellant; that mere non- payment of rent does not constitute default until it is proved that it was intentional; that no opportunity was given to the appellant to address the arguments of the ejectment petitioners in application for striking off right of defence which is against the principles of natural justice; that respondents Nos.3 to 8 have joined hands with respondents Nos.1 and 2 and they are no more interested in the fate of proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that valuable rights of the appellant are involved in this case, therefore, this appeal be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded to learned Rent Controller for decision afresh.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 has vehemently opposed this ejectment petition and supported the impugned order.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
7. This FAO has been filed under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 which is reproduced as under:-- "24. Appeal (1) Any party aggrieved by an order, not being an interim order, made by the Controller may, within thirty days of such order, prefer an appeal to the High Court.
(2) The High court may, pending the final disposal of the appeal, make an order staying further proceedings or action on the order of the Controller: Provided that no such order shall be made if the appeal has been preferred from an order made under subsection (6) of section 17-A.
(3) The High Court shall, after perusing the record of the case and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary after making such further enquiry either by itself or by the Controller as it may deem fit, make an appropriate order which shall be final.
(4) No order of the Controller except by an appeal under this section, and no order of the Appellate Court made under this Act shall be called in question in any court by any suit, appeal or other legal proceedings."
8. Admittedly, the appellant was not a party in the ejectment proceedings and his application for impleading him as respondent in the ejectment proceedings was dismissed before the learned Rent Controller. On query raised by this Court as to how this appeal is maintainable when the appellant does not fall within the definition of term "aggrieved party", learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal is maintainable as the appellant was a tenant lawfully occupying the property under the agreement dated 18-7-2003 executed in his favour by initial tenant Waseem Nawaz/respondcnt No,3 under respondents Nos.1 and 2/landlords. He further submits that the rent was being deposited by the appellant with the court of Rent Controller in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2/landlords, therefore, he should have been impleaded in the ejectment proceedings as he was a necessary party therein. He further submits that the appellant is directly affected by ejectment order passed by Rent Controller against respondents Nos.3 to 8 as in light of the said order, the appellant will also have to vacate the shop in his possession. In order to bring the appellant within the definition of "aggrieved party", learned counsel has relied upon the law laid down in cases reported as "Meraj Gul v. Rukhsana Ameen and others (2013 PLC (CS) 1089)", "Dr. Abdul Hafeez v. Province of Punjab through the Secretary Education, Lahore and others (PLD 1991 SC 165)", "Begum Humayun Zulfiqar Ismail and another v. Begum Hamida Saadat Ali (1968 SCMR 828)", "Siraj Din and others v. Additional District Judge, Okara (1986 CLC 975)" and "Ch. Nazir Ahmad v. Mrs. Mariam Salauddin Khawaja and others (PLD 1994 Lahore 252)".
9. The Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is a special law which prevails upon the general law.
The term "aggrieved party" has not been defined anywhere in this Act. In order to come to a conclusion, the term "aggrieved party" will have to be taken by way of its literary meanings. The term "aggrieved party" has been defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as under:-- "One whose legal right is invaded by an act complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is directly affected by a decree or judgment. One whose right of property may be established or divested.
The word "aggrieved" refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal or property right, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation."
' According to the above definition, the appellant does not fall within the interpretation of term "aggrieved party" as a party can be a person aggrieved but a person who may be effected by a judgment or order of a lis cannot be considered as an aggrieved party to fall within the purview of section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. Furthermore, the appellant, admittedly, entered into the property in dispute during the pendency of the ejection petition as the ejection petition was filed on 1-7-2002 whereas the appellant, according to his own version, was rented out the shop in question vide agreement dated 18-7-2003, as such, he was not a sub-tenant at the time of filing of the ejectment petition, therefore, he is not an aggrieved party within the definition of section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963.
10. The appellant claims himself to he the sub-tenant in view of the agreement dated 18-7-2003, a copy of the same is present on record. Perusal of agreement dated 18-7-2003 shows that it is not a rent agreement rather it is a sale agreement executed by Waseem Nawaz who is one of the L.Rs, of original tenant and had no authority to enter into any such agreement on behalf of the landlords.
In the circumstances, it is prima facie clear that the appellant is approbating and reprobating at the same time as on the one hand he claims himself to be a sub-tenant under respondents Nos. 3 to 7 in view of agreement dated 18-7-2003 but perusal of the said agreement shows that it is not a rent agreement but an agreement to sell. Rent agreement and agreement to sell are altogether two different things. If the appellant is a sub-tenant, he cannot claim ownership over the disputed shop and if he is the owner, he might not have said himself to be the sub-tenant. These controversial things make the claim of the appellant doubtful. The said agreement is apparently signed by Waseem Nawaz, who is one of the L.Rs, of the original tenant who had no authority to sign any agreement o sell in favour of any body. As such, the appellant if feels himself aggrieved may approach the competent court of law for redressal of his grievance against Waseem Nawaz.
The title of the appellant over the property in question has vehemently been opposed by respondents Nos.3 to 7 who were actual tenants, as such, it cannot be presumed that any legal right of the appellant was invaded by way of impugned ejectment order against respondents Nos.3 to 8 who have not assailed the impugned ejectment order passed against them, as such, the order impugned has attained finality to their extent. Since the appellant is claiming himself as a subtenant under respondents Nos.3 to 7 who in terms of impugned order have been ejected from the property, the appellant has no locus standi to file the instant appeal. The case-law relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is also not helpful to him in the circumstances of the case.
11. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is not maintainable. Resultantly, without touching other merits of the case, the same is dismissed on this score alone.