1. ' This petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is against an order of learned District Judge, Sahiwal, passed in appeal on 19-3-1991, by which an order of learned Rent Controller dated 15-9-1990, dismissing the ejectment petition brought by respondent Haji Allah Din was set aside, and ejectment case was remanded for retrial on an added issue "whether the ejectment petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party i,e. The children of late Tufail Hussain? OPR". Relevant facts for decision of the petition, shortly put are these:-- A residential house No,23-B/B-11, situated in Furniture Bazar, Liaqat Shop, Sahiwal City, is owned by Haji Allah Din. Tufail Hussain occupied it as rent-paying tenant of the owner. Tufail Hussain died on 18-12-1987, leaving behind surviving a widow Mst. Zainab Bibi and children from her. Upon intending to return home in Pakistan permanently, on 16-6-1988, Haji Allah Din acting through his general attorney. Rana Mukhtar Ahmad brought a petition for eviction of the occupant Mst. Zainab Bibi, on the ground of his self-requirement of the house. Upon being served. Mst. Zainab Bibi submitted her defence statement. She denied tenancy holding under Haji Allah Din and asserted that her late husband held the house as tenant of one Nazir Ahmad who had given it to him and was receiving rent in respect thereof. It was further asserted that the house was in occupation of the surviving heirs of Tufail Hussain who as a body constituted joint tenants and were necessary parties to' the ejectment case. Other averments in the ejectment petition regarding personal requirement of the owner were also traversed. Since the tenancy-relation was 'denied, Rent Controller settled following preliminary issue to resolve it:--
(1) Whether,there exists relationship of,landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA.
(2) Relief.
2. ' On 18-5-1989, Rent Controller found that Rana Nazir Ahmad was the landlord of the house occupied by Mst.' Zainab Bibi, and consequently tenancy relationship did not exist between the parties to the ejectment . Petition. Consequent upon the Above conclusion, ejectment petition was dismissed. Haji Allah Din preferred, an appeal. It was allowed on 6-6-1990, by learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, who found that statement of Rana Nazir Ahmad was material to satisfactory decision of the preliminary issue and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for recording his statement, subject to right of cross-examination by either party. On remand, Rent Controller recorded the statement of aforesaid Rana Nazir Ahmad as CW-1. He gave evidence that Haji Allah Din was his brother-in-law who had orally authorized him to receive rent of the house on his behalf. He admitted that Tufail Hussain was paying him rent in his lifetime. Upon review of fresh material alongwith the material already existing on record, Rent Controller again dismissed the ejectment petition on 15-9-1990 by observing that in absence of other legal heirs of late Tufail Hussain who had not been impleaded to the ejectment petition, relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. Haji Allah Din again preferred an appeal, resulting in the remand order to the Rent Controller to re-decide the ejectment case on the added issue. In Para-6 of the impugned order, learned District Judge, proceeded to observe:- "It seems to be quite ridiculous to hold that the relationship of landlord and tenant does, not exist between the parties, because of the non-joinder of some of the tenants i,e. The children of Mst.
3. Zainab Bibi. The Rent Controller did not frame any issue regarding this moot point and his order suffers from this legal infirmity. When the respondent had specifically alleged that she was not the sole occupant of the suit house and besides her, her children were also putting up in the same house and that the petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party, it was obligatory for the learned Rent Controller to frame an issue regarding this controversy and the parties should have been allowed to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. But to my great surprise, neither an issue was framed nor the parties led any evidence. In the absence of any evidence on the file, the finding of the Court below appears to be quite funny and fantastic."
4. ' After striking, an additional issue for re-trial by the Rent Controller, learned Judge further proceeded to say:- "The relationship of landlord and tenant is no longer a moot point. It has been established through evidence of unimpeachable character that this does exist between the parties and the Rent Controller has come to this irresistible conclusion m the aforesaid referred para. He is, therefore, not allowed to change his view on issue No,1 . The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 2-44991 and produce their evidence, if any, on the said date regarding the additional issue of non-joinder of necessary party.'
5. ' It is this order of remand for re-trial of additional issue that has been assailed in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. From the resume of the orders hereto passed, it is evident that the house belonged to Haji Allah Din. It was let out to Tufail Hussain, on his behalf by his brother-in-law Rana Nazir Ahmad. Haji Allah Din was abroad. In his absence, his brother-in-law collected rent of the house for him. Upon returning to Pakistan, he expressed his need of the house for his self- occupation and filed an ejectment case against Mst. Zainab Bibi. She put up a defence that her husband was tenant of the house holding under Rana Nazis Ahmad and upon his death, all legal heirs of the deceased tenant as a collective body were invested with the legal status of a tenant.
6. Precise objection raised was that in absence of all the heirs of the deceased tenant, ejectment petition was imperfectly constituted .Impugned order gave effect to this objection and remanded the ejectment case for further inquiry on it by letting in fresh material. On record, there was not much doubt that late Tufail Hussain was in occupation of the house as tenant of Haji Allah Din.
7. Upon his death, his wife and children, in occupation of the house, were jointly invested with the status of a tenant under the owner-landlord of the house. Children of the deceased lived under an umbrella of their mother. Considering her the occupant of the house, as successor of the deceased-tenant, respondent Haji Allah Din made her the sole, respondent to the ejectment petition. In terms of definition clause in Section 2(j) of Rent Restriction Ordinance, in relevant context, the wife and children of a deceased-tenant were jointly conferred with the status of tenant. Therefore, children of the deceased-tenant were a necessary party to an effectual and satisfactory decision of the ejectment petition. The effect of non-joinder could not be allowed to prove fatal to the ejectment petition. Learned District Judge, therefore, rightly noticed the defect and remitted the case to Rent Controller for trying it from that angle by allowing parties an opportunity to lead evidence of their choice. In case, Rent Controller found that deceased was survived by children and their presence before him was considered necessary, there is no bar in law for him to join them as parties to the ejectment petition for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties. Repeated rounds of litigation for merely overcoming the technical hurdles is not the object of law which favoured adjudication on merits.
8. Four years have already gone by, and yet the controversy on preliminaries could not be resolved. It is a simple rent dispute which has suffered the bewilderness of technicalities and unnecessary intricacies. In equitable jurisdiction, impugned order, which is in clear direction of advancement of justice ought not to be interfered with. In my view, impugned order was neither illegal nor unjust.
9. Further, it did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction also. There is no cause to interfere with it.
10. Therefore, writ petition is dismissed but without an order for its costs in this Court.
11. ' Proceedings stayed before the Rent Controller shall revive towards their final decision. As the ejectment petition has already suffered enough delay, Rent Controller shall expedite its hearing for a final decision within six months. Further delay shall frustrate the very object of summary proceedings under the Rent Laws. It is hoped that Rent Controller shall not frustrate the time schedule for final decision of the ejectment case,