This Constitutional Petition assails the order, dated 29-1-1983 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Okara, whereby he disallowed the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as party in an ejectment petition filed by respondent No. 3 against respondent No. 4 seeking the latter's eviction from Shop No. B, II.6.S/18, Rail Bazar, Okara.
2. The factual background of the case, briefly stated, is that dispute remained pending between respondent No. 3 and Khuda Bakhsh Bhatti, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners about the transfer of the aforesaid shop. The dispute ultimately went up to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
The said learned august Court decided the matter in favour of respondent No. 3.
3. The petitioners' predecessor died in the meantime and the petitioners filed a suit before the Civil Court at Okara, challenging the transfer in favour of respondent No. 3 on the ground of fraud, etc. The said suit is still pending as 23-4-1984 being the next date of hearing.
4. Respondent No. 3, earlier in 1968, filed an ejectment application against the aforesaid predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners who resisted the application on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. Khuda Bakhsh having died in the meantime, order of ejectment was passed by the learned Rent Controller against the petitioners. They (the petitioners) filed an appeal before the learned District Judge (Appellate Authority), Okara. The learned District Judge accepted the appeal and that order has not been challenged.
5. Respondent No. 3, however, on 13-10-1982 moved an ejectment application before the learned Rent Controller against respondent No. 4. He contended in his ejectment application that respondent No. 4 had obtained possession from Khuda Bakhsh through Bashir Ahmad petitioner No. 4 acting as a general attorney of Khuda Bakhsh and that Farzand Ali respondent No. 4 had concealed this fact from respondent No. 3. Farzand Ali, respondent No. 4, resisted the ejectment application of respondent No. 3 and asserted that he was neither in possession of the shop in question nor had anything to do with that. The petitioners when learnt about the pendency of ejectment application filed by respondent No. 3, against respondent No. 4, filed an application before the learned Rent Controller for being impleaded as party. Their request was, however, turned down through the impugned order. They preferred an appeal. That too has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge although no appeal was competent against an interim order.
6. While passing the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller has found that by way of the ejectment petition filed by respondent No. 3 against respondent No. 4, a dispute between a landlord and tenant was pending and the petitioners who are strangers to the dispute could not equitably and legally spoke their nose in that dispute.
7.It is, however, noteworthy that in the ejectment application filed by respondent No. 3 against respondent No. 4 it has been alleged that respondent No. 4 had obtained the shop in question on rent from Khuda Bakhsh, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, through Bashir Ahmad, petitioner No. 4, the son and attorney of Khuda Bakhsh and that, thereafter, Farzand Ali kept this fact secret from respondent No. 3. It has also been alleged that the respondent No. 3 subsequently served a notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, on Farzand Ali, respondent No. 4, and thus relationship of landlord and tenant got constituted between the two. It has not been denied' that earlier respondent No. 3 had sought ejectment of Khuda Bakhsh,I the predecessor-in- interest, of the petitioners and the learned Rent A Controller after the death of Khuda Bakhsh 'passed ejectment orders against the petitioners. The said ejectment order was, however, set aside by the learned Appellate Authority. Respondent No. 3 thus according to his own stance in the ejectment application filed against respondent No. 4 has alleged that the said respondent was a sub-tenant from the original tenants. Respondent No. 3, however, in the ejectment application has impleaded the sub-tenant alone as respondent without impleading the tenants. The alleged sub- tenant, as already stated above, has contended in his reply to the ejectment application that he was neither in possession of the shop in question nor had anything to do with that shop.
8. In these peculiar circumstances of this case, the petitioners against whom respondent No. 3 had throughout been litigating since 1961, are a necessary party to the proceedings brought by respondent No. 3 against their alleged sub-tenant viz. Respondent No. 4. Without impleading them as party, they can have bona fide apprehension that they would be ejected from the shop in question on the strength of an ejectment order intended to be obtained by respondent No. 3 against respondent No. 4 who has actually nothing to do with the shop in question.
9. In Syed Riaz Hussain v. Muhammad Iqbal, etc. PLD 1981 Lah. 215, it was held that an order of interim nature passed by a District Judge in exercise of his jurisdiction under the Rent Restriction Ordinance could be declared as without lawful authority if it suffered from jurisdictional defect.
10. Similarly in Messrs Shahzad Ice Factory and 2 others v . Special Judge Banking, Lahore and another PLD 1982 Lah. 92, it has been held that if the High Court was satisfied that an interlocutory order passed by a Court or Tribunal suffered from infirmities affecting jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal passing the order, the High Court would be failing in its constitutional duties to refuse to interfere with such an order and allow Court or Tribunal to pass illegal order.
11. In Mst. Ghuran v. Mst. Buggan and others AIR 1942 Oudh 338, it was observed:-- "Ordinarily, there should be no interference with an order passed by a lower Court in the exercise of its discretion under Order I, rule 10; but where the order passed debars the proper adjudication upon all questions involved in the suit, interference in revision is necessary."
Therefore, where the lower Court has rejected an application by a party to be impleaded in the suit and the suit can only be settled conclusively on such party being made a party, the lower Court has exercised a wrong discretion which amounts to a material irregularity and interference in revision is necessary.
12. Needless to say that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115; C.P.C., is assimiable to the writ jurisdiction.
13. In the light of the foregoing conclusions, this Constitutional petition is allowed and the impugned orders, dated 19-1-1983 and 24-5-1983 passed by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge, Okara, are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
The learned hznt Controller is directed to proceed in accordance with law and implead the petitioners as respondents in the ejectment application filed by respondent No. 3 against respondent No. 4 and permit them to participate in the pro--ceedings. No order is made as to costs.
14. The learned Rent Controller, however, is directed to decide the ejectment application within three months.