' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.--- Appellants have directed this second appeal against the impugned orders dated 14-12-2011 and 6-7-2012 passed by the learned courts below. Through the former, learned Rent Controller dismissed their application under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. And through the latter the learned First Appellate Court dismissed his appeal filed against the order of the learned Rent Controller.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent No.1 filed an ejectment petition against one Mushtaq Ahmad seeking his eviction from the demised premises fully described in para No.1 of the petition. During the pendency of said ejectment petition, the present appellants filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. Seeking their impleadment as party in the eviction petition inter alia on the grounds that they are co-owners in the demised premises; that step brothers of the appellants by way of fraud and misrepresentation alienated the demised premises in the name of respondent No.1; that operation of the decree on the basis of which demised premises was alienated in favour of step brothers of the appellants have been suspended by the learned trial Court upon the application of the appellants filed under section 12(2) of C.P.C.; since the basis on which the step brothers of the appellants have transferred demised premises in favour of the respondent is no more available, as such his title over the demised premises has become defective; that valuable rights of the appellants are involved in the lis as such they being the co- sharer are necessary and proper party in the eviction petition.
3. Respondent contested the petition by filing written reply. After hearing the arguments, the learned Rent Controller proceeded to dismiss the application of the appellants vide impugned order dated 14-12-2011. Being aggrieved the appellants filed appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 6-7-2012.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Appellant's application under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. Was dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide impugned order dated 14-12-2011 and the point which requires determination is whether remedy of filing of appeal against such order was available to the appellants. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to reproduce section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which provides as under:- "Appeal.
(1) Any party aggrieved by an order of the Controller finally disposing of any application made under this Ordinance may, within thirty days of the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area where the building or rented land in relation to which the order is passed, is situated; "
6. A 'party' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as under:--- "'Party', is a technical word having a precise meaning in legal parlance; it refers to those by or against whom a legal suit is brought, whether in law or in equity, the party plaintiff or defendant, whether composed of one or more individuals and whether natural or legal persons; all others who may be affected by the suit, indirectly or consequently, are persons interested but not parties."
7. Keeping in view aforesaid definition of 'party' the appellants IB seeking his impleadment as party in ejectment proceedings is not a party within the contemplation of section-15 of the Ordinance ibid. Reliance is placed on case reported as Mistri Allah Din v. Fazal Muhammad and another (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 52) wherein it has been laid down as under:---- "This restrictive conferment of right of appeal has a basis in the limited, exclusive and designated jurisdiction of the Rent Controller unlike plenary jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts. The Rent Controller can only entertain disputes between the landlord and tenant excluding all others in the matter. It is only the parties before the Rent Controller, the landlord and the tenant, who can bring the matter before the higher Appellate Authority designated under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance."
8. Seeking guidance from the above judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court, I am of the considered view that appeal of the appellant's against IC the order of the learned Rent Controller is not competent.
9. Even on merits, the appellants have no case. It is apparent from the record that respondent entered into agreement to sell dated 27-12-1993 with regard to the demised premises with Muhammad Asif etc. Who later on did not honour the said agreement to sell which constrained the respondent to file a suit for possession through specific performance which was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 11-3-1997 against which vendors appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 6-5-2002 and C.P. Filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment reported as Muhammad Asif and others v.
Mian Muhammad Zia (2003 SCM R 1706). The appellants filed application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. For setting aside the aforesaid decree which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13-2-2007 passed in C.M. No.494-03 in R.F.A. No.126 of 1997. It is thus evident that the title of the respondent over the demised premises is quite clear. If the appellants have some family dispute merely on that basis the respondent shall not be made to suffer.
10. So far as suspension of operation of decree dated 22-9-1994 upon the appellant's application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. By the trial court is concerned, suffice it to say that respondent has no nexus whatsoever with the said decree. If the appellants succeed in establishing their claim in the said petition, the consequences of the same would be faced by the persons in whose favour the said decree was passed. Therefore, on that basis the appellant's cannot be considered necessary and proper party in the ejectment proceedings.
11. Besides, there is no material available on record to suggest that the ejectment proceedings were collusively instituted just to harm the interest of the appellants. If the appellants are allowed to be impleaded and to contest the ejectment petition, then the simple ejectment case for eviction of the tenant would be converted into intricate question of title which is not warranted under the law.
Therefore, in no manner it can be said that presence of appellants before the Rent Controller is necessary for a final and effectual decision in the ejectment case or that in their absence no effective order could be passed, therefore, appellant's application under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C.
Was rightly dismissed by the learned courts below and no exception can be drawn therefrom.
12. Resultantly, this appeal being without any substance is dismissed. No order as to costs. The learned Rent Controller seized of the matter is expected to decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Second .