' Appellants above-named, being aggrieved by judgment dated 19-2-1981 of the learned Additional District Judge, Tharparkar, at Mirpurkhas passed in Civil Appeal No, 34 of 1975, by which order dated 20-12-1974 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mirpurkhas was set aside, by which he had dismissed respondent's ejectment Application No, 8 of 1972, on the ground, that relationship of landlord and tenants does not exist between the parties, have preferred the Second Appeal on the following facts and grounds :-
2. Briefly facts of the present case are, that one Ramzan son of Wazir alias Sanwalia, of whom present appellants are legal representatives, according to respondents above-named had occupied property bearing No, C. S. 219, Hirabad, Mirpurkhas, belonging to Shrimati Asudi Bai, of whom present respondents are legal representatives, soon after partition in the year 1947. Similarly 15 other persons had occupied another property bearing No, C. S. 221-222, Hirabad, Mirpurkhas, belonging to Shrimati Asudi Bai. On 27th May, 1950, all the properties belonging to Shrimati Asudi Bai were declared Non-Evacuee by the Central Government through the Custodian and also by Additional Settlement Commissioner E. P. Sind on 17-2-1952. Thereafter on the representations of Shrimati Asudi Bai all properties, including above-mentioned properties, were removed from Evacuee pool. Consequently P. T. Os. Erroneously issued to the appellants' predecessor in title and other occupants of the said properties were also cancelled by the Settlement Authorities on 21-1- 1961. Therefore Shrimati Asudi Bai filed Rent Applications against all the 16 occupants for fixation of fair rent, including against Ramzan son of Sanwalia alias Wazir. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 31-3-1962 dismissed all these applications filed by Shrimati Asudi Bai, on the ground, that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties.
3. Shrimati Assuda Bai filed 16 appeals against order dated 31st March, 1962 of the learned Rent Controller, in the Court of Additional District Judge, Tharparkar, and the learned Additional District Judge, Tharparkar was pleased to allow all these appeals by common judgment dated 10th September, 1963 and held that their existed relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties.
4. One of the occupants of the above-mentioned properties of Shrimati Asudi Bai, namely Allah Bux son of Rahim Bux, who was in occupation of one of the premises, filed a Second Appeal No, 247 of 1963 in this court, which appeal was accepted and the judgment dated 10th September, 1963 of the learned Additional District Judge, Tharparkar was set aside, as far as appellant Allah Bux son of Rahim Bux, alone was concerned. It may be noted, that none of the other occupants of the properties belonging to Shrimati Asudi Bai preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 10th September, 1963 and consequently Shrimati Assuda Bai filed ejectment applications against said occupants in the court of learned Rent Controller. One of such applications was application No, 8 of 1972 which was filed against Nannu son of Ramzan, Samaria son of Ramzan and Ramzan son of Sanwalia, in respect of House No, C. S. 219, Hirabad, Mirpurkhas. According to Shrimati Asudi Bai the original occupant of property bearing survey No, C. S. 219, Hirabad, Mirpurkhas was Ramzan son of Sanwalia, alias Wazir, but since said Ramzan son of Sanwalia had died, after passing of judgment dated 10th September, 1963 and as the appellants above-named after his death, asserted, that Ramzan son of Sanwalia and Ramzan son of Wazir, were two different persons, Shrimati Asudi Bai out of abundance caution filed the said ejectment application No, 8 of 1972 against Nannu son of Ramzan, who claimed to be the legal representative of Ramzan son of Wazir and Ramzan son of Sanwalia somebody who came forward and claimed to be Ramzan son of Sanwalia and in occupation of house No, C. S. 219, although according to Shrimati Asudi Bai, he was dead and Nannu son of Ramzan, was the legal representative of the deceased. Shrimati Asudi Bai had also added the name of Samaria son of Ramzan in the original ejectment application, but later on he was dropped on 7-3-1972, as it was found out, that he was not heir of Ramzan son of Wazir alias Sanwalia. This second ejectment application filed by Shrimati Asudi Bai was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 20th December, 1974, on the ground, that their existed no relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties.
5. Shrimati Asudi Bai being aggrieved by order dated 20th December, 1974 of the learned Rent Controller, by which her ejectment application No, 8 of 1972 was dismissed, filed first Rent Appeal No, 34 of 1975 in the Court of District Judge, Tharparkar at Mirpurkhas, which was allowed by judgment dated 19-2-1981 by Additional District Judge, Tharparkar, at Mirpurkhas. The appellants Nos. 1-9 above-named claiming themselves to be the legal representatives of Nannu son of Ramzan, who expired during pendency of the litigation in question, and appellant No, 10 claiming to be a distinct person than Ramzan son of Wazir have filed the above second appeal against the legal representatives of Shrimati Asudi Bai, who also expired during the pendency of the said litigation, on the ground mentioned in the memo. Of appeal.
6. I have heard the learned Advocate of the appellants and attorney of the respondents and have gone through the impugned order dated 20-2-1974 of the learned Rent Controller and judgment dated 19-12-1981 of the learned Additional District Judge, Tharparkar, at Mirpurkhas as well as through the R & P of the learned trial Court.
7. The learned Advocate for the appellant's in support of the above appeal submitted. That order dated 20-12-1974 of the learned Rent Controller was legal and based on evidence adduced before him and consequently learned Additional District Judge has erred in setting aside the said order by impugned judgment dated 19-2-1981, on the basis of order dated 10-9-1963 of the learned Additional District Judge, Tharparkar passed in 16 appeals filed by Shrimati Asudi Bai, against order dated 31-3-1962 of the learned Rent Controller. By which it was held that there exists relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted, that appellants Nos. 1 to 9 predecessor was not party to the said proceedings in which order dated 10- 9-1963 was passed, whereas appellant No, 10, though, was party in the said proceedings, he was not served and as such the said order was not binding on the present appellants, and consequently the judgment dated 19-2-1981 of the learned Additional District Judge, Tharparkar cannot legally be sustained and the said judgment is liable to be set aside by this Court.
8. The attorney of respondents above-named, who appeared in person before me, submitted that in proceedings which resulted in order dated 10-9-1963, on appeals filed by Shrimati Asudi Bai, Ramzan son of Sanwalia alias Wazir whom present appellants represent was party and had defended th said ejectment application and also appeals filed by Shrimati Amlabai, in which finally order dated 10-9-1963 was passed and as such the said order is bindin on the present appellants, as rightly held by learned Additional District Judge, Tharparkar in his impugned judgment dated 19-2-1981. In support of his contention, the attorney of respondents produced photo copy of objections filed by Ramzan Sanawalia injectment application No, 354 of 1961, and sub mitted, that in these objections Ramzan son of Sanawalia declared himself a Ramzan son of Wazir alias Sanawalia and it was only later on, after the death of Ramzan son of Wazir alias Sanawalia, that appellants took stand, that Ramzan son of Wazir and Raman son of Sanawalia were two different persons. But admitted that both of them were in possession of same property bearing '1 Survey No, C. S. 219 and as such the stand of the present appellants, tha order dated 10-9-1963 is not binding on them has no force at all. I see great force in this contention of the attorney of respondents, as learned Advocat for the appellants was unable to dispute photo copy of objection produced by attorney of respondents, in respect of Rent Case No, 354 of 1961, which is also on record of the first appellate Court. Keeping in view, this undisputed photo copy of objections, filed by Ramzan son of Wazir alia Sanawalia in Rent Case 354 of 1961, which proceedings ultimately resulted in passing of order dated 10-9-1963 in appeals by learned Additional District Judge, Tharparkar, I see no reasons to disagree with the conclusions and findings of the learned Additional District Judge. Tharparkar, passed in appeal No, 34 of 1975, as said order dated 10-9-1963, became final between the parties, as far as relationship of landlord and tenants was concerned, as also held in case reported in PLD 1974 Kar.
133.
9. Therefore, I see no merits in the above appeal, which is consequently dismissed, with no orders as to costs, and remand back ejectment application No, 8 of 1972 to the Court of learned Rent Controller to dispose of respondents ejectment appalication on merits, in accordance with law, on the basis, that their exists relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties, in view of earlier order dated 10-9-1963 of the learned Additional District Judge, Tharparkar passed in 16 appeal which were filed by Shrimati Asudi Bai, which order is on record of above appeal as Annexure 'A' and was only set aside by this High Court in Second Appeal No, 247 of 1963, as far as appellant Allah Bux only, vide judgment dated 25-1-1965, which is also on record as Annexure 'C'. Since these proceedings have been pending between the parties since 1972, I direct the learned Rent Controller to dispose off ejectment application in question, on merits, within six months from the receipt of R & P from this Court.