1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Dispute in this case relates to tenancy of shop on plot :No. 168/8 Liaquatabad, Karachi. According to the appellants, their father Masihuddin (deceased), let out the shop to A.M. Siddiqui, respondent 2, who however represented at the the of the execution of the agreement dated 9-7-1969, that his name was A. M. Marghoob son of A.M. Siddiqui, joined in this petition as respondent 1. Later, on 23-12-1969 on the failure of the tenant to pay rent, Masihuddin filed an application for his eviction, in the name of A.M. Marghoob son of A.M. Siddiqui as mentioned in the rent agreement.
2. In defence, it was asserted by A.M. Siddiqui, respondent 2, that A.A. Marghoob was a minor and the ejectment proceedings were not valid. Learned Rent Controller rejected this plea by the order, dated 21-3-1972 and afterwards by the order dated 19-2-1972 directed ejectment of the tenant.
3. Petitioner then filed Civil Suit No. 733 of 1973 in the Civil Suit for the recovery of rent in the name of the tenant as shown in the rent agreement and this suit was decreed ex parte by the judgment dated 21-7-1973.
4. A.M. Siddiqui, respondent 2, then filed Suit No. 176 of 1974 in the Civil Suit praying for a declarationHe however .Did Snot 1973 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. Pursue the suit, and it was dismissed on 23-8-1977 for non-prosecution.
5. Masihuddin then filed execution application in respect of the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller on 19-7-1972. Respondent 2 filed objections, as an intervener, claiming himself to be the allottee of the property. These objections were dismissed by the Rent Controller by the order dated 14-2-1975 and he issued a writ of possession in favour of Masihuddin.
6. The respondent 2 however filed a revision against this order which was allowed by the High Court, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision. On remand, the Rent Controller upheld the objections of the respondent 2, and directed by the order dated 29-10-1977 that the possession of the shop be restored to him.
7. Masihuddin's appeal against this order was dismissed and revision application in the Sind High Court was also dismissed by the judgment, dated 19-1-1980.
8. Since Masihuddin died after the judgment of the High Court, petitioners filed a petition for leave to appeal which was granted by this Court to consider several points raised on behalf of the petitioners, including-that since all his objections raised by the tenant in the first round of litigation were overruled, it was not open to him to raise similar pleas in the execution proceedings.
9. In view of the several legal and factual pleas raised by the petitioners, learned counsel for both the parties pray that the interest of justice demand that the parties should be granted a chance to agitate the factual as well as the legal pleas before the Rent Controller concerned, who should hear the objections to the execution application of the appellants in respect of the order of the Rent Controller dated 19-7-1972. We are also of the same view. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the judgment of the second Additional District Judge dated 2-8-1979 and the order of the Rent Controller dated 29-10-1977, and direct that the objections filed' by the respondent to the execution application in respect of the order of the Rent Controller dated 19-7-1972 shall be heard and decided afresh in accordance with law. The appeal is thus allowed and in the circumstances parties are left to bear their own costs.