' This is a second rent appeal, late Agha Safdar was the tenant in respect of the premises in question. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the legal representatives of late Agha Safdar. It was the case of the appellant/landlord that Agha Safdar was the tenant as sole proprietor of the firm "Agha Films" in respect of the premises in question and that respondent No, 1, Mst. Zarina Begum was not the tenant in respect of the premises in question. The ejectment application No, 441 of 1973 was filed against the legal representatives of Agha Safdar and Mst. Zarina Begum, respondent No, 1 in the present appeal, was also joined as one of the opponents. In the ejectment application it was averred that Agha Safdar was the tenant in respect of the premises in question and after his death, his legal representatives namely respondents Nos. 2 to 4 became the tenants and that Abba Safdar was in arrears of rent since March, 19 71 and failed to pay arrears in spire of the demands and personal representations. It was further pleaded that even after the death of Agha Safdar his legal representatives also failed to pay the arrears as well as the current rent. It was also pleaded that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 neither filed any written statement nor contested the rent proceedings.
In par a. 5 of the ejectment application it was stated that the appellant came to know recently that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have sublet and passed on the possession of the premises in question to respondent No, 1 and this was without the consent of the appellant. By order dated 14th October, 1975 the learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application. Before the learned Rent Controller, on behalf of respondent No, 1, Mst. Zarina Begum, it was contended that the ejectment application was not maintainable on the ground that the appellant was only a shareholder in the property in question and all the other owners/landlords have not been made a party to the case and that the appellant was a co-trustee and under the Trust Act one trustee could not file an ejectment application. The learned Rent Controller rejected these contentions holding that even co-owner or landlord could file an ejectment application under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and as the appellant was one of the landlords, he could institute the ejectment case against his tenant. It may be observed here that in the original ejectment application, apart from the three legal representatives of late Agha Safdar, originally Mujibur Rehman and Habibur Rehman had been joined as opponents Nos. 4 and 5, as information had been received by the appellant that the legal representatives had sublet the premises to them. However, in the written statement filed by the Said Mujibur Rehman and Habibur Rehman it was pleaded that they were not is occupation of the premises in question and that their names be deleted from the list of opponents and it was averred that the premises were in occupation of Mst. Zarina Begum. In view of this written statement, the learned Rent Controller struck off the names of Mujibur Rehman and Habibur Rehman from array of the opponents and Mst. Zarina Begum was joined as opponent No,
4. It was the case of Mst. Zarina Begum that she was the tenant of the premises in question. No evidence was produced on behalf of Mst. Zarina Begum and on the basis of evidence the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that respondent No, 1 was not the tenant of the premises in question and that there had been a default in the payment of rent by respondents Nos. 2 to 4, who were the tenants. The learned Rent Controller also found that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 had sublet the premises to respondent No, 1 and that Agha Safdar was the sole proprietor of "Agha Films".
2. Against the order of ejectment dated 14th October, 1975 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Rent Appeal No, 688 of 1975 was filed by Mst. Zarina Begum and this was allowed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi, by his order dated 3rd February, 1979. It is this order by the First Appellate Authority which has been impugned in the present second appeal filed by the appellant. I have heard Mr. Zafar Aziz Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellant. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned First Appellate Authority erred in holding that the procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller in deleting the names of Mujibur Rehman Habibur Rehman and then impleading Mst. Zarina Begum as an opponent in the ejectment case was not justified on any legal principles. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is correct. I do not see any illegality in the procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller. In the original ejectment application, apart from respondents Nos. 2 to 4, Messrs Mujibur Rehman and Habibur Rehman had been impleaded as, opponents on the basis of information received by the appellant that the premises had been sublet to them by respondents Nos. 2 to 4. However, after the written statement had been filed in which a stand had been taken by Mujibur Rehman and Habibur Rehman that they were not in occupation of the premises and they had no interest in the premises and that the person in occupation was Mst.
Zarina Begum, the learned Rent Controller deleted the names of Mujibur Rehman and Habibur Rehman from the list of opponents and added the name of Mst. Zarina Begum. As observed earlier, no illegality was committed by the learned Rent Controller in adopting this procedure.
4. The only other point, on which the learned First Appellate Authority upset the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller was that only one trustee had filed the ejectment application. In this case the appellant Iqbal Hassanally Effendi is a co-trustee and his father, Nisarally Effendi was the "Mutawalli". It is no doubt correct that the application had been filed by Iqbal Hassanally Effendi, alone but Nisarally Effendi "Mutawalli" had given evidence on behalf of the appellant. It, therefore, follows that the ejectment application had been filed with the approval and consent of the "Mutawalli" i,e, Nisarally Effendi. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the ejectment application could not be held to be incompetent on the ground that Nisarally Effendi had not been shown or joined as one of the applicants.
5. In the circumstances Second Appeal No, 145 of 1979 is allowed. The result is that the order dated 3rd February, 1979 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Karachi, in Rent Appeal No, 688 of 1975 is set aside and the order dated 14th October, 1975 of the learned Rent Controller allowing the ejectment application No, 441 of 1973 is maintained. Costs are also granted to the appellant as against the respondent No, 1 only. The respondents are, however, allowed time till 31st July, 1983 to vacate the premises.