JUDGMENTAbdul Rahim Kazi, J- This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned VI Rent Controller, South, Karachi, rejecting the appellant's application under section 12(2) read with section 151 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The facts of the case are that the present respondent No.1 had filed the Rent Case No.1183/1986 against the respondent No.2 for ejectment on the grounds of default, personal requirement, etc. The application was allowed exparte and the ejectment of the respondent No.2 was ordered. The execution application was filed. However, Subsequently, on an application moved by respondent No.2 under section 12(2) CPC., read with section 151 CPC., the said exparte order of ejectment was set aside and the case was ordered to proceed according to law which is pending before the court of the Rent Controller. The present appellant also, during the pendency of the execution moved the above said application which was rejected by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that the co-owner cannot be joined as opponent in the rent case and it is this order which has been challenged in the present appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1, while none has appeared for respondent No.2. The first objection that was raised is with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal, as Mr. Sardar Abdul Majeed Khan, who is appearing for the respondent No.1, has contended that the impugned order being an interlocutory order, the first appeal could not be filed. Meeting the above objection, Mr. B.M. Bangesh, learned counsel for the appellant, has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Mobin Siddiqui V. Mst. Shahzadi Begum And 2 Others (1982 SCM R 233), wherein their lordships have observed the rent case and, therefore, he is entitled to file the present appeal. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court I am inclined to held that the present appeal is maintainable.
3. The next contention of Mr.B.M. Bangesh is that the present appellants are owners of the premises in dispute i.e. Zainab Market and they, claiming the interest in the property arc the necessary party to the proceedings and the Rent Controller ought to have joined them in the proceedings. He has placed reliance on the case of Allah Rakhio vs. Khushmir Khan and 43 others (1986 C.L.C.1828). No doubt it is an established law that any person who claims interest in the property whose presence in the proceedings is necessary for complete adjudication of the matter is a necessary party but in the present case the facts arc some what different. It would be necessary to point out that the present appellants in his application had made a prayer to be joined as opponent, where as they are claiming to be the owners landlords of the demised premises. In the facts and grounds as mentioned by Sirajuddin the alleged managing director of the appellant, in his affidavit has not made any grievance or shown any case of action against the present respondent No.2 who is the opponent in the rent case. If the appellant claims to be the co-owner of the property or even exclusive owner of the property in dispute then he at the most could be joined as co-applicant or substituted as applicant but not as an opponent as prayed for by him. I am, therforc, in agreement with the order of the Rent Controller that the appellant could not have been joined as opponent in the rent case as prayed for by him. It would k& necessary here to give a little back ground of the facts. It appears that the present appellant and respondent No.1 are both partners in pertain properties and commercial associations and that a civil suit has already been filed by the present respondent No.1 and his wife against the present appellant and one Rafiuddin being Civil Suit No.373/1985, wherein it is claimed by the present respondent No.1 that he and other persons including the present appellant are associates of an association of persons known as "Sirajuddin Paracha and others" which facts has not been denied but in the counter-affidavit filed in said suit by the present appellant, he has admitted that the present respondent No.1 and his wife have certain shares in the properties held by them. From this it is obvious that the appellant and the present respondent No.1 who appear to be brothers have estranged relations and have quarrel over properties and are fighting for their rights in the civil suits. However as far as the present rent application is concerned, the same has been filed by the respondent No.1 who appears to fall within the definition of the landlord as given in section 2(f) which reads as under.
"(f)" landlord" means the owner of the premises and includes a person who is for the time being authorized or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises."
4. Mr. Sardar Abdul Majeed Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has referred to the rent receipt filed alongwith the rent application by the present respondent No.1. The heading of this application shows Mehboob Bakhsh Limited as owners of Zainab Market but the same is signed by the present respondent No.1 on their behalf which shows that he was authorised to collect and receive the rent for the owners and, therefore, can certainly be termed as landlord and thus the present rent application having been filed by the landlord is competent. I am also of the view that this rent application filed by the present respondent No.1 is therefore, quite competent and maintainable. Lastly, Mr. B.M. Bangesh has taken the objection that the rent case itself was not maintainable for the reason that the property was owned by a private limited company and no individual share holder could file the rent case. He has placed reliance on the case of Syed Mohammad Shah Alias Mahomood and 3 others vs. Messrs Karimii Ibrahimii & sons and another (1986 M LD 1773). This objection can be taken before the Rent Controller and I would at this stage desist from dilating on the said issue.
5. The present appellants are at liberty to pursue any remedy available to them in law through the proper course. For the above reasons I find no merits in the present appeal which is dismissed with no order as to costs.