1. ' Orders on C.M.A. No,1240/92.
2. ' The above-mentioned application has been moved by defendants Nos,1 and 2 under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Whereby it is prayed that the plaint may be rejected on the following grounds:--
(i) ' That the plaint does not.Disclose any cause of action.
(ii) ' That the suit is barred under section 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act.
3. ' Counter-affidavit has been filed by plaintiff No,1 who reiterated that cause of action existed against the defendants, and that the suit was not barred under sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act.
4. ' Briefly stated the facts are that defendant No,2 owned a plot bearing No,W.O.4/12, measuring 8,547 Sq.Yds, which was being used for the residences of Police OfficeRs, Defendant No,3 which is a construction Company offered defendant No,2 for construction of commercial-cumresidential project on self-financing scheme. Defendant No,2 with the consent of Defendant No,1 agreed to allow defendant No,3 to demolish the old structures on the said plot, and build a new commercial- cum-residential multi-storeyed building to be constructed by defendant No,3. < Defendant No,3 thereafter constructed commercial-cum-residential building. The shops were let out to different persons by defendant No,3 on "PAGRI-CUM-RENT BASIS". The present 4 plaintiffs have acquired tenancy rights from defendant No,3 in respect of their shops on "PAGRI-CUM-RENT BASIS".
5. ' According to the plaintiffs there had been lot of bungling by defendant No,3 in constructing the aforesaid building and also in letting out the shops and flats to different persons. It is averred that defendant No,3 by adopting deceitful means misappropriated millions of rupees which in fact were to go to defendant No,2. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that defendant No,3 has been collecting rent from the tenants in his own rights as owner and landlord and not on behalf of defendants Nos,1 and
2. As such the original agreement whereby the plot was handed over to defendant No,3 in was no more in existence as defendant No,3 violated its terms and conditions. This being so, according to the plaintiffs, the purchase rights of defendant No,3 the plot in dispute have been extinguished. As such the plaintiffs were in better position to buy the said plot of land with construction thereof, on same terms and conditions on which it was sold to defendant No,3 by defendants Nos,1 and 2 for the reasons that the plaintiffs and other tenants have already paid a huge amount to the extent of Rs,10 crore and were ready to pay the balance of sale consideration to defendants Nos,1 and 2 over and above the amount which the plaintiffs have already paid to the defendant No,3. The plaint contains following prayers:--
(1) That it be declared that the contract of sale of property No,W.O. 4/12 measuring 8,547 Sq.Yds.
6. Between the defendant Nos,1 and 2 on one hand and defendant No,3 as buyer on the other has come to an end and it stood rescinded upon failure of the defendant No,3 to fulfil the terms and conditions of the contract of sale and hence the defendant No,3 has no right, title and interest left in the property in question and the same vests'in defendants Nos,1 and 2 who are fully entitled to resale it to the plaintiffs.
(2) Mandatory injunction be issued against the defendants Nos,1 and 2 to sell the property to the plaintiffs on the same terms and conditions on which it was sold to defendant No,3 by allowing the plaintiffs to pay the balance of sale price to defendants Nos,1 and 2.
(3) Permanent injunction be issued against the defendant No,3 restraining him to carry on any more construction on the said plot or sell the offices and flats of the project to any other person.
(4) Permanent injunction be issued against the defendant No,3 restraining him from collecting rent from the plaintiffs and other tenants of the project.
7. ' M/s. Zubair Qureshi and Amanullah learned counsel for defendants Nos,1, 2 and 3 vehemently submitted that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against defendants Nos,1 and 2 as it is their own case that they had come in possession of the shops and flats as tenants of defendants No,3 after paying "PAGRI". As such they were at the most tenants of defendant No,3 and had no cause of action against defendants Nos,1 and 2. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs had no right to claim that the defendants Nos,1 and 2 be directed to sell the plot in dispute and construction thereon to theplaintiffs. They were the mere tenants of Defendant No,3 and the right, if any, accrued to the plaintiffs was at the most to remain in possession of their respective tenements and not to be vacated by force. There is no allegation in the plaint that any of the defendants has been trying to dispossess plaintiffs from their respective tenements.
8. ' It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that section 42 of the Specific Relief Act provides that if a person had acquired any right to any property and the same is being denied by any person, then suit for declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act could be filed. The learned counsel for defendants submitted that the perusal of the plaintiff nowhere indicates that the plaintiffs had acquired right of ownership in respect o the property in dispute and that the defendants were denying the same. On the contrary the plaintiffs' claim is that they were tenants of defendant No,3. As such at the most they should have filed a suit for declaration in order to protect their rights as tenants. It is further argued that the present suit prays for a declaration that the contract of sale between defendants Nos,1 and 2 on one hand and defendants as buyer on the other had come to an end. Obviously the plaintiffs being strangers to that agreement had no right to seek such declaration and the suit was barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
9. ' On the other hand Mr. Ismail Padhiar placed reliance on the oral allegations of the plaintiffs about the alleged violations committed by defendant No,3. He submitted that as a result of the aforesaid misconduct and violations of the agreement by defendant No,3 the contract between defendants No,1 and 2 on the one hand and defendant No,3 on the other hand came to an end. Accordingly the plaintiffs being the tenants were fully entitled to purchase the property in dispute from the defendants Nos,1 and 2.
10. ' Mr. Padhiar placed reliance on 1981 CLC 654, PLD 1968 Karachi 222, 1983 CLC 1173 and 1982 SCMR 778.
11. ' I am not at all impressed by the arguments given by Mr. Ismail Padhiar. The case of the plaintiffs is based on surmises, conjectures, and conclusions arrived at by them according to their own choice.
12. Obviously they are the tenants of defendant No,3 and they have no right to bring into question or challenge the agreement of sale which was concluded between defendants Nos,1 and 2 on the one hand and defendant No,3 on the other. The tenancy rights of the plaintiffs have not been violated by any of the defendants, hence they have no cause of action to bring a suit for declaration against the defendants. Since the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and, suit is also hit by section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, hence I allow present CMA and reject the plaint under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. With cost.
13. ' CMAs Nos, 4044/91, 6022/92, 7628/92 and 7629/92 have become infructuous and are hereby dismissed as such.
14. Plaint rejected.