' This is an S.A.O. By the lady whose father-in-law Shabrati has been firstly contesting the proceedings for the transfer of the property in dispute. He fought the litigation up to High Court and failed.
2. The next phase was that of eviction proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The transferee filed an eviction application against Shabrati who put up the plea that it was not he who was in possession but his daughter-in-law Mst. Qamar-un-Nisa the present appellant.
3. The learned Rent Controller who allowed the eviction application held that respondent No. 2 Shabrati was in possession and was a tenant of the premises in dispute and was liable to eviction.
This was vide order, dated 15-5-1979. Thereafter, the said Shabrati father-in-law of the appellant did not appeal any further and was content with the order passed against him. It may be mentioned however that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings the appellant wished to join the proceedings on giving an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P. C. Which was disallowed by the Rent Controller and her appeal before the appellate authority also failed. She also contented herself with that situation and never assailed the matter any further.
4. The other round was then started by Mst. Qamar-un-Nisar who filed an appeal against the eviction order of the Rent Controller, dated 15-5-1979. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal in limine after sending for the record with the finding that she was not a bona fide litigant and had been introduced by Shabrati to embark upon this adventure. This is vide order, dated 25-6-1979. In this view of the matter it was held that she had no locus standi in the matter.
Hence this second appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal has sought to raise a number of grounds touching upon the merits and jurisdiction of the Tribunals below. I think the primary question to be decided in this case is that of locus standi and the compentency of her appeal. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the appellant and perusing the record has come to the positive conclusion that the appellant was not a bona fide litigant and was a put up person.
The further finding was that the appellant suffered from want of locus standi to file this appeal. It is noteworthy that the appellant figured nowhere during the Settlement proceedings which culminated in the order of the High Court. The litigation during the Settlement phase was contested by Shabrati the father-in-law of the present appellant. Her husband died in the year 1973 and thereafter she has married another person Qamar-ud-Din with whom she is residing. This is a finding recorded in respect of her. The father-in-law of the present appellant also contested the proceedings before the Rent Controller and when the pronouncement was against him he went out of the scene. She was sought to be introduced during the proceedings but without success.
Thereafter, she has been contesting the appeals. Considering the over-all facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to differ with the view of the appellate authority that the appellant has been put up as a person to defeat the order of Rent Controller by none else than her father-in-law Shabrati. The appellant thus suffers from lack of locus standi. I, therefore, do not feel called upon to decide the other questions being raised.
6. In the circumstances of the case, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is allowed four months' time to vacate the premises.