1. ' I have had the advantage of hearing only Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, as, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Although, I have been waiting for Mr. A.R. Mirza, learned counsel for the appellant since morning but he has remained absent.
2. ' So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant had filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance seeking eviction of respondents Nos.1 and 2 from the demised premises on the ground of subletting of the premises by respondent No,1 to respondent No,2, and also conversion of the nature of the business, which was being carried on in the demised premises. Respondents No,1 and 2, had failed to defend the case, therefore, they were ordered to be evicted from the demised premises vide order, dated 2-9-1989, which was passed ex parte by the learned Controller. It is pertinent to point out that during the pendency of the proceedings, an application was filed on behalf of respondent No,3, under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. As the said respondent wanted to be joined as co-applicant before the learned Controller, as according to her, she was the co- owner of the property in question. Although, the application was opposed by the appellant, nevertheless respondent No,3 was joined was co-appellant in the case by the learned Controller, as no dispute existed on the point that she was the co-owner of the property.
3. ' After a perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal, I find that the appeal is misconceived. The main issue before the learned Controller was whether respondents Nos.1 and 2 were liable to be evicted from the demised premises and the said issue was decided against the said respondents. The question whether respondent No,3, was also the landlord of the premises, was not directly an issue before the learned Controller. No doubt, an application filed by respondent No3, under Order 1, Rule, 10, C.P.C. Was resisted by the appellant but the same was decided by the learned Controller in favour of respondent No,3, since, as pointed out earlier, the said respondent was co-owner of the property. The definition of "landlord" in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance does not only include the owner of the premises but also its co-owner. A dispute between the appellant and respondent No,3, in respect of their respective rights in the property, no doubt, can become the subject-matter of separate litigation between them, but the order passed by the learned Controller dated 2-9- 1989 cannot be challenged by the appellant on this ground. Even the order dated 26-7-1989, whereby the application filed by respondent No,3, under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. Was disposed of, does not appear to be open to exception, under the circumstances of the case just enumerated above.
4. ' In the result, I find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.