' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-This Intra-Court Appeal No, 7 of 1982 arises from the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 14th March, 1982, whereby writ petition filed by Haji Muhammad Rafiq appellant against Mr. Karamat Hussain Khan Niazi, and others, was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts leading up to this Intra-Court Appeal in brief are that the disputed property No, 370, Ward No, 8-H, Multan is residential house having two portions, one portion was in the possession of Ghulam Qadir respondent No, 3, whereas the other portion was under the occupation of Fateh Muhammad father of Jamil Ahmad. Ghulam Qadir respondent No, 3 and Fateh Muhammad were non-claimants. They applied for the transfer of the portion occupied by them. They were issued appendix IX for depositing Rs, 4,416 for each portion. Fateh Muhammad moved an application requesting that the portion of the house in his occupation was not in a good condition and its valuation is much excessive. Ghulam Qadir also made the same complaint. It so happened that both the portions of the property in question were later on included in the evacuee pool and put to auction but could not attract any bid. Abdul Sattar respondent No, 2 approached the authorities and offered to purchase the portion in the occupation of Ghulam Qadir respondent No, 3 at half rate. He deposited the amount and was issued transfer order on 16th December, 1974. Ghulam Qadir respondent No, 3 due to his financial difficulties could not deposit the price of the portion. He, therefore, entered into an agreement with the appellant and argeed to surrender his right in the said house through registered deed executed on 30th April, 1975. He allegedly delivered the possession of that portion to Haji Muhammad Rafiq appellant, it has been alleged that Ghulam Qadir respondent No, 3 filed relinquishment deed before the Settlement Authorities which was accepted. The appellant, thereafter, deposited the price and requested for the issuance of transfer order. Ghulam Qadir challenged the transfer of the portion in favour of Hakim Abdul Sattar respondent. No, 2 before the Settlement Commissioner which was accepted on 2nd April, 1975.
Aggrieved by this order, respondent No, 2 moved a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was accepted. The learned counsel informs that respondent No, 3 has challenged the order of the High Court in an appeal before the Supreme Court which is pending adjudication. On 21st July, 1980. Hakim Abdul Sattar respondent No, 2 moved an application before the Rent Controller, Multan, against Ghulam Qadir respondent No, 3 for his ejectment from the disputed portion of the house. The application is still pending. Haji Muhammad Rafiq, after the filing of the application for ejectment, submitted an application before the Rent Controller for impleading him as a party. This application was rejected on 12th January, 1982. Feeling. Aggrieved. Haji Muhammad Rafiq filed a Writ Petition No, 19 of 1982 which was dismissed on 14th March, 1982. Hence this Intra-Court Appeal.
' The learned counsel for the appellant has contended :- (i)That the appellant is a transferee of the half of the portion of the house and is in possession of the whole of the house and as such is a necessary party.
(ii) That the impugned order of the Rent Controller is based on misstatement and misreading of the evidence on the record and that the Rent Controller appears to be under the impression that the appellant's contention was that there was an agreement between Haji Muhammad Rafiq appellant and Hakim Abdul Sattar respondent No, 2 which was denied by respondent No, 2 in reply to the application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C.
(iii) That it was not the function of respondent No, 1 to see that the P. T.
0. Has been issued to the appellant or not.
(iv) That the learned Single Judge has wrongly observed that the writ petition was directed against the order of the District Judge, dated 20th January, 1982 and, in fact, no such order was assailed in the writ petition.
4. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record. We find that Ghulam Qadir respondent No, 3 in reply to ejectment application filed by Hakim Abdul Sattar respondent No, 2 has clearly stated in para. No, 3 of the written statement "that he was in the possession of the house since 1947". To our mind, the claim of the appellant that he had acquired the disputed portion through relinquishment deed executed by Ghulam Qadir, who actually delivered the possession to the appellant, is not supported by the written statement filed by Ghulam Qadir respondent No,
3. The learned Rent Controllor had an authority to accept or reject the application moved by the appellant under Order, rule 10, C.P.C. For impleading him as a party to the application The learned Rent Controller has applied his mind and has given reasons in support of his conclusion. In para. No, 2 he observed. "It is admitted by Muhammad Rafiq that P. T. O. Has not been issued in his favour." It has, however, been observed by the Rent Controller that "the previous application by Muhammad Rafiq for impleading him as a party wa dismissed in default by my learned predecessor on 17th September, 1981 This application is not maintainable on the short ground that no application for the restoration of the previous application was moved by Muhammad Rafiq".
5. Now we deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel. As for contention No, (1) it is an admitted position that no valid order of transfer of the disputed house exists in favour of the appellant. So far as contention No, (ii) is concerned, learned counsel has failed to point out any material misreading or misstatement materially effecting the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller or by the learned Single Judge. As for contention No, (iii), we are not inclined to accept the same for the reasons that in an application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. For impleading the appellant as a party the question of the transfer of any proprietary rights or the interest of the appellant herein in the property was very much relevant. As for contention No, (iv), there is no denying the fact that it was not directed against the judgment of the District Judge dated 20th January, 1982. It appears that it has inadvertently been stated so. Even otherwise, this observation has no material bearing upon the question of the legally of the order of Rent Controller.
' For all these reasons there is no merit in this Intra-Court Appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.