1. ' This petition under Art.9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 is directed against order dated 12-9-1981 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby he accepted the appeal filed by respondents Nos.2 to 8 being heirs of Mian Abdul Aziz and set aside the order dated 20-4-1981 of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore dismissing the ejectment petition filed by Mian Abdul Aziz against the present petitioner.
2. Mian Abdul Aziz now deceased sought ejectment of the petitioner from house No,27, Ata Turk Block, New Garden Town, Lahore on the grounds that the petitioner had committed default in payment of rent and the property in dispute was required by the landlord in good faith for his son.
2. The ejectment petition was contested by the petitioner and the learned Rent Controller framed following issues:-
(1) Whether the house in dispute is required by the petitioner for the use and occupation of his son named Muhammad Aslam, in good faith?
3. (1-A) Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek ejectment on the ground of personal need?
(1) Whether the respondent is a defaulter?
(2) Relief.
4. ' During the pendency of the ejectment petition Mian Abdul Aziz died and respondents Nos.2 to 8 were impleaded in his place. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 8 did not press issues Nos.1 and 1-A. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 20-4-1981 held that the allegation of default committed by the petitioner in payment of rent could not be proved and consequently he rejected the application.
5. ' On appeal filed by the respondents Nos.2 to 8 the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide the impugned order dated 12-9-1981 reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of default in payment of rent committed by the petitioner, allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner's ejectment from the property in dispute within two months from the date of his order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the property in dispute was owned by Mst.
6. Kishwar lqbal. Mian Abdul Aziz, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 8 was only acting as her attorney; with the death of the latter the attorney ship terminated and the respondents Nos.2 to 8 were not competent to seek eviction of the petitioner from the disputed property. It was contended that this point was specifically raised by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge but he failed to appreciate that on the death of Abdul Aziz the petition could not be prosecuted by respondents Nos.2 to 8 who were heirs of Abdul Aziz. None of them was owner/ landlord of the property in dispute. Learned counsel referred to certified copy of the ejectment petition subsequently filed by Mst. Kishwar Iqbal and otheRS, It was pointed out that in paras 1 and 2 it was mentioned that Mian Abdul Aziz was appointed as her attorney. He had expired. There was no need to retain the names of his heirs as petitioners but as abundant caution they were impleaded as such. It was also stated that in the subsequent ejectment petition she claimed default in payment of rent covering the disputed period in this case. It was argued that the proceedings pending in pursuance of earlier ejectment petition had become infructuous.
7. ' It was lastly stated that after the expiry of the period mentioned in the rent note executed on 21-12- 1973 by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, there was no default committed by the petitioner in payment of rent and onward the terms of tenancy were to be regulated by the statutory provisions of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Yusuf v. Abdullah PLD 1980 SC 298 in support of his submission.
8. 4.None has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents to oppose this petition. Even on 3- 12-1982 nobody appeared on their behalf.
9. 5.The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered in the light of the documents on the file.
10. Mian Abdul Aziz, father-in-law of Mst. Kishwar Iqbal was appointed as attorney on her behalf. He filed ejectment petition against the petitioner and died before the same was decided by the Rent Controller. With his demise his status as attorney on behalf of landlady/ owner also terminated.
11. Respondents Nos.2 to 8 being his legal heirs were, therefore, not competent to prosecute the ejectment petition against the petitioner unless they were authorized by the owner/landlady to act on her behalf. The perusal of the certified copy of the ejectment petition subsequently filed by Mst.
12. Kishwar Iqbal established that she was owner/landlady of the disputed property and Mian Abdul Aziz acted as her attorney. Respondents Nos.2 to 8, therefore, could not maintain the ejectment petition against the petitioner. May be for that reason Mst. Kishwar Iqbal filed another ejectment petition against the petitioner on the basis of the grounds contained in the earlier application and the respondents Nos.2 to 8 did not oppose this petition.
6. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore is declared to be of no legal effect. This petition is allowed with no order as to costs.