' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-Petitioner Mohsan Zaidi is aggrieved by the rejection of his objection that the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller in respect of the premises consisting of the upper portion of House No, A-120, Kashmari Bazar, Rawalpindi, was not executable against him. Syed Gauhar Ali, respondent herein, filed ejectment application in respect of the said premises against the brothers of the present petitioner both sons of S. M. Qasim Ali, namely Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Muslim. During the pendency of these proceedings the petitioner aiongwith his another applied before the learned Rent Controller for being impleaded as respondents in the aforesaid ejectment proceedings, on the ground that his father Qasim Ali was the allottee of the house in question and on his death his rights in the house had devolved upon his legal heirs who were in occupation thereof, including the petitioner. However, by order dated 14-10-1976, the learned Rent Controller on the opposition of the respondent rejected the application on the ground that according to the landlord the premises in question were in the occupation of the two sons of the deceased who were already joined as parties to the ejectment proceedings and that the rest of the legal representatives were not in possession of the property and observed:.
"I think it is for the petitioner to see that as to who are the persons residing in the premises in question and as such it is his sweet will to array anybody in the list of respondents. As the petitioner has not sought any relief against the other legal representatives of S. Qasim Ali Shah, I do not think that they are necessary parties to this application."
' The revision application filed by this petitioner and his mother seeking to challenge this order was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi by his order dated 11-2-1977 holding that the same was incompetent in law.
2. The learned Rent Controller passed order of eviction against the brothers of the petitioner on 16- 9-1981 which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional. District Judge, Rawalpindi. The respondent filed an execution application against Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Muslim in the Court of Civil Judge, Rawalpindi. The petitioner intervened in these proceedings and filed objection to the effect that he being in possession of the disputed premises in his own right he was not liable to be dispossessed in execution of the order of eviction passed against his brothers. The objection was, however, overruled and dismissed by order dated 31-7-1983. The appeal of the petitioner against the said order having been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, he filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi which was dismissed in limine by order dated 1-10-1983 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was in possession of the disputed premises in his own right as per the findings of the Courts below and there was no jurisdictional error in those orders. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dismissing his revision has brought this petition seeking leave to appeal.
3. In support of the petition it is contended by the learned counsel that in view of the admitted position that his father Qasim All was the allottee of the disputed premises, on his death the rights legally devolved upon all his heirs including the petitioner who thereupon became the statutory tenant in the property by virtue of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. It is further submitted that in the premises the order of eviction was not binding upon him as he was in possession of the property in his own right and, therefore, on admitted facts his objection was liable to be upheld. Thus according to the learned counsel the Courts below in dismissing his objection has failed to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in them.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel are of first impression. It appear to us that the petitioner has been diligently persuading his rights by making a proper application for his joinder in the ejectment proceedings at the earliest stage and his brothers were impleaded by the respondent as successors-in-interest of Qasim Ali the father of the) petitioner. The question that arises is whether all the heirs of deceased occupant of property since the crucial date succeed to the right of statutory tenancy under the provisions of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Com-I sensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
4. The contentions raise important questions of law for determination in this case. Leave is accordingly granted. Security for costs Rs, 7,500. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record but it will be open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. Status quo shall be maintained as to the petitioner possession.