1. ' IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J.---The 3 petitioners herein are the owners of a building known as Rawalpindiwala Building situated on Plot No,13/2, Street No,SR-3, Nicole Road, Karachi. The petitioners on 4-4-1983 filed an application for ejectment of Messrs Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. (respondent No,2 herein), from their composite tenement bearing Nos,27 and 27-A in their building on the ground of default in payment of rent and nonuser of the rented premises by them. The respondent No,2, after they were served with the notice of the ejectment application filed a written statement stating therein that the premises in question were in fact rented out to one Muhammad Tahir Burni, who expired on 30th April, 1984. As per arrangements worked out between tenants and the landlords the rent of the premises was being deposited with them and they were after receiving the rent for about 3 months forwarding it to the landlords. They claimed that they are not the tenants of the premises in question but the premises was in fact let out to one Mr. Muhammad Tahir Burni who used it for carrying on his business till his death and thereafter his son Rasheed Burni succeeded as a tenant and was carrying on the business of his father. On 12-2-1989, the Advocate of the said respondent filed a statement before the Rent Controller that he did not have instructions to pursue the case. On 9-2-1989 an application was filed on behalf of Messrs Iqbal Brothers, the respondent No,3, herein, who claimed that they were the tenants of the adjacent tenement bearing No,28 in that building. They claimed that they came in possession of tenement No,27 through one Jamaluddin/jalaluddin and they were paying rent to Muhammad Tahir Burni during his lifetime and they are in possession of the premises in question. On the basis of such statements made in the application filed under Order I, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, they claimed to be impleaded as a necessary party in the rent application.
2. ' The application filed under Order I, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code by respondent No,3 was resisted by the petitioneRs, The Rent Controller after hearing the parties allowed the application filed by respondent No,3 by her order passed on 4-9-1990. It is against this order that the petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
3. ' Mr. Ibrahim Pishori, Advocate for the petitioners, strenuously argued that respondent No,3 are neither necessary nor proper parties and therefore the Rent Controller by her order has exceeded her jurisidction and ordered them to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings. In support of his such contention he referred to the cases reported in 1985 SCM R 714 and 1981 CLC 212.
4. ' Mr. Khalid Latif, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No,3, contended that respondent No,2, who have been shown as tenants of the rented premises in question, have themselves in their written statement stated that they have never been its tenants. They further pointed out that one Rasheed Burni son of Muhammad Tahir Burni, the original tenant, is in possession of the premises.
5. The respondent No,3 are claiming to be in possession of the rented premises since long time and therefore they are necessary parties to the proceedings. He further pointed out that the Rent Controller has exercised her discretion in impleading the respondent No,3 as the necessary parties and such discretion cannot be interfered with any exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. In support of his contention he referred to the cases reported in PLD 1981 SC 246, PLD 1983 SC 21, 1989 M LD 1737 and 2294.
6. ' A Rent Controller under section 20 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 can only exercise the power exercised by a Civil Court only in respect of matters enumerated in its sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d). Power to add parties as it is provided under Order I, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, although is not mentioned under section 2a of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, but a Rent Controller as a Special Tribunal and in absence of any procedure prescribed for the trial of matters before it under sections 19 and 20 of the said Ordinance can always press the equitable principles contained in certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as a matter of inherent jurisdiction. On the basis of the pleadings of the original parties to the ejectment application a Rent Controller is required as a matter of initial burden on him to decide if the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. In view of the stand taken by respondent No,2 that they are not the tenants of the rented premises and on the basis of application filed by the respondent No,3, the Rent Controller is expected in the present case to first decide existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. This being a question of fact can only be resolved after the parties have participated in the proceedings and led evidence. Under the circumstances of the present case which require a question of the fact to be decided by the Rent Controller, this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction would not interfere in the decision of the Rent Controller impugned in this petition. By taking such view we are supported by the case of Haji Muhammad Aslam Baluch v.
7. Pakistan Steel and another published in 1989 M LD 2294.
8. ' For the foregoing reasons we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.