QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J:- This writ petition by Mst. Farida Bano, petitioner, calls in question order dated 17.11.2014 of the learned Rent Controller-I, Peshawar, whereby application of the petitioner for her impleadment in the eviction petition u/s 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959,by respondent No.1, Hazrat Muhammad, against respondents No. 2, Muhammad Asim Sarhadi, and respondent No.3, lshfaq, was dismissed. The petitioner, in her writ petition, also assailed order dated 06.12.2014 of the learned Additional District Judge-II, Peshawar, whereby her appeal was dismissed in limine.
2. On the basis of her claim of ownership and possession in respect of House No.106, Gulbarg No.2, Peshawar, the petitioner applied for her impleadment in the ejectment petition of respondent No.1 against respondents No.2 & 3. The petitioner happens to be the real mother of respondent No.3, who has been arrayed as a subletee in the eviction petition by the landlord/respondent No.1. The ejectment petition has been lodged by respondent No.1/landlord against respondent No.2/tenant and respondent No.3/Subletee on the grounds of default in payment of monthly rent on the part of respondent No.1, subletting of the house by respondent No.2 to /respondent No.3, and personal need.
3. The record would show that relationship of landlord and tenant was denied, leading to eviction order by the learned Rent Controller, Peshawar vide order dated 17.07.2013; but the case was remanded back to the learned Rent Controller to frame an issue regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. At that juncture, when the eviction petition was still pending for adjudication on the said issue, the petitioner moved application for her impleadment as a party in the eviction petition, inter alia, citing the ground of pendency of her civil suit for declaration in the Court of Civil Judge-VIII, Peshawar.
4. During arguments, Mr. Muhammad Farooq Malik, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was a necessary party in the proceedings pending before the Learned Rent Controller as she had a valid claim to the ownership and possession of the house in question and had also lodged a suit for establishment of her rights. The learned counsel /further contended that the impugned order of the 4/ learned Rent Controller was final in respect of claim of the petitioner, as dismissal of her application for impleadment would, obviously, keep her out of the proceedings and deny her the right to establish her claim in the proceedings.
5. Mr. Muhammad Javed Yousafzai, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, argued that appeal was not maintainable against an interlocutory order of the Rent Controller, and that the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller was, indeed, an interlocutory order, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge-II, Peshawar was perfectly justified in dismissing appeal of the petitioner in limine vide impugned order dated 06.12.2014.The learned counsel maintained that the petition for impleadment was yet another attempt on the part of the petitioner to further delay ejectment of her son from the house, allegedly, occupied by him as a Subletee.
6. The rent appeal of the petitioner against the order of dismissal of her application for lmpieadment in the eviction petition by the learned Rent Controller-I, Peshawar, was dismissed in limine by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Peshawar, on the ground that appeal against interlocutory order of Rent Controller was not maintainable, and rightly so, because Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, specifically bars appeal against interlocutory order of a Rent Controller.
7. This has been the consistent view of superior Courts in the country that neither order passed on application under Order 01 Rule 10 CPC was appealable, nor provisions of CPC and "Qanoon-e- Shahadat" were applicable to proceedings before a Rent Controller being in the form of an inquiry. "
[1981 CLC 212 (Lahore), 1982 CLC 1171 (Karachi), 1987 CLC 1210 (Lahore) & 2005 M LD 1232 (Lahore)1".
Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.12.2014 of the learned Additional District Judge-II, Peshawar is not open to exception through a writ petition.
8. On merits too, the writ petition is bereft of substance as the petitioner had no locus standi to )be impleaded in a rent case between landlord and tenant on the basis of her claim of ownership and possession, especially when she had already lodged a civil suit therein seeking declaration in respect of her rights of ownership and possession. Having availed the alternate remedy of a civil suit for enforcement of her claim/rights through a civil suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction, the writ petition, even otherwise, would not be maintainable.
9. There also can be no two opinions that the object of application for impleadment of the petitioner in rent case between landlord and tenant was to further delay eviction proceedings against her son, as the application, otherwise, could not serve any other useful purpose.
10. In the circumstances, the writ petition is certainly devoid of merit, hence dismissed.