1. ' This application under Article 199 of the Constitution, arises out of an ejectment petition filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 for eviction of respondent No,5 from the shop in dispute in his possession on the ground of rent-default and its requirement for their self-use. Respondent No,5 denied relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondents Nos.3 and 4 as also the allegations of rent-default and personal requirement of shop in question. On 25-3-1991, the Rent Controller settled a preliminary issue for deciding of the question about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and postponed the case for evidence on 28-4-1991. Thereafter, the ejectment case was adjourned to 4-6-1991. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a petition under Order I, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, for being impleaded as a party-respondent to the ejectment petition.
2. It was stated in the petition that near portion of the shop popularly known as P-71/2 measuring 4' x 10' = 40 square feet was, in his possession for the past several years. The ground beneath the property No,P-71/2 belonged to Provincial Government, and, structure was made upon it by him. It was stated that ejectment case filed in respect of this property by respondents 3 and 4 was collusive with respondent No,5. Upon the above statement of facts, it was stated that he was a necessary party to the ejectment case, because its result shall materially affect him. Respondent No,5 supported the petitioner but respondents 3 and 4 opposed his intervention. By order dated 11- 3-1991, Rent Controller did not permit his joining the ejectment case. Against his order, petitioner filed a revision. It was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, on 10-41991. It was doubtful, whether the order of Rent Controller refusing impleadment of the petitioner as a party to the ejectment case was open to revision in the rent hierarchy. Petitioner has already filed a suit in the civil Court at Faisalabad against Province of Punjab, Deputy Commissioner/Collector District, Faisalabad, and, respondents Nos.3 and 4 for claiming a declaration that he was entitled to purchase this part of the property and respondents were not authorised to interfere with his possession. That suit is stated to be still sub judice. On query from the Court, learned counsel replied that initially an interim injunction was issued by the trial Court but upon hearing the parties, application was dismissed on merits. It is not known, whether an appeal was preferred against the decision of the trial Court refusing to issue interim injunction during the pendency of the civil suit.
3. Upon facts presented to the Court, petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the ejectment case. There was no material to suggest that the ejectment proceedings were collusively instituted to harm the interests of the petitioner. If petitioner is allowed to be impleaded and to contest the ejectment petition, then the simple ejectment case for eviction of the alleged tenant will be converted mainly into a complex title suit between respondents Nos.3 and 4 and the petitioner and the relief asked for in the ejectment case will pale into secondary importance. Apart from that consideration, as observed above, petitioner has already taken his controversy to the Civil Court against respondents 3 and 4 etc. For claiming a title to the property allegedly in his possession numbered as P-71/2. Obviously, being not a party to the ejectment case, decision in it may not be binding upon him. Petitioner does not claim to be a tenant of respondents Nos.3 and 4 as against their alleged tenant respondent No,5. Ejectment case covers rear portion of Property P- 71 whereas the petitioner lays claim to the property bearing No,P-71/2. No record of its ownership has been filed with the writ petition. In the context, it cannot be said that the presence of petitioner before the Rent Controller was necessary for a final and effectual decision in the ejectment case or that in his absence, no effective order could be made. In similar circumstances in cases reported in AIR 1977 Orissa 183, AIR 1978 Jammu & Kashmir 84, intervention of a third party was shut out.
4. Therefore, the impugned decision could not have been characterised either as without jurisdiction or without lawful authority. Upon this view, interference in Constitutional jurisdiction,. Is denied by this Court and petitioner is left to pursue his other remedies at law.