1. ' Rent Case No, 444 of 1993 was filed by respondent No,1 Mst. Qaiseri Begum against respondents Nos. 2 to 6 under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereafter mentioned as the Ordinance) for their eviction from the two shops and a go down bearing No, B-825, Block 2, behind Super Market, Liaquatabad, Karachi. According to the rent application it was Rehmatullah, predecessor of respondents Nos. 2 to 6, who was tenant of respondent No, 1 Mst. Qaiseri Begum.
2. ' During pendency of the rent case, appellants Mst. Noorjehan and Mst. Yasmeen moved an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. For being joined as opponents. Their application was dismissed under the order dated 13-2-1994 passed by IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi Central. Hence this appeal.
3. ' The appeal was admitted for hearing on 3-4-1994 when notices were ordered to be issued for the respondents. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 filed his power while the remaining respondents have not so far been served. There was an order on 22-9-1994 by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) that the legal steps be taken for service on respondents Nos. 2 to 6 by filing an application for substituted service. C.M.A. No, 1042/94 has been moved on behalf of the appellants for re-calling of the order dated 22-9-1994. C.MA. No, 1043/94 has been moved on behalf of respondent No, 1 for re- calling of the directions for issuing notices to respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
4. ' I have heard Mr. Javed Raza, Advocate for respondent No, 1 and Mr. Rasheed Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate for the appellants on Miscellaneous Applications as well as on main appeal which was fixed today for regular hearing.
5. ' It is an admitted position that Rehmatullah was the original tenant of respondent No, 1 in the premises in litigation and that he has died. Appellants Mst. Noorjehan and Mst. Yasmeen claimed to be daughters of Rehmatullah. Learned counsel for respondent No, 1 could not rebut this, but he stated that respondent No,1 did not know if the appellants were daughters of deceased Rehmatullah. On the point whether the appellants be joined as party to the rent case, learned counsel for respondent No, 1 cited the case of Saleem Zafar v. Aleema Begum (1994 CLC 1139) where out of the legal heirs of a deceased tenant only one of them being his son came forward to join claim of being tenant and he alone had been paying and tendering rent and no one else, and he had been found to be in possession of the demised premises and the view taken was that he alone was to be the tenant in place of the deceased tenant. On the other side, learned counsel for the appellants cited the case of Fazal Ahmad v. Msj. Ramzan Bibi (PLD 1975 Lah. 790), where an ejectment application was filed only against son of the tenant who had died and the view taken was that the ejectment order passed against son of the deceased tenant, cannot be executed against wife of the deceased tenant. In the present case the rent case is fixed at the stage of cross-examination of respondent No, 2 as stated at the Bar by learned counsel for respondent No,l.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has not pointed out at any evidence to show that the appellant are not daughters of deceased Rehmatullah. However this point can be determined by the Rent Controller on the basis of evidence. The fact that respondent No, 2 had stated in his written statement that firstly he was helping and assisting his father in the business and after his death he was in exclusive possession of the premises, cannot bind the other heirs of Rehmatullah and cannot stop them from participating in the proceedings and rebutting such assertion. The question whether the appellants are joining the proceedings with mala fide intention can be inquired into and determined by the Rent Controller. As observed in the case of Lahore High Court the order of eviction even if passed against respondents Nos. 2 to 6 may not be effective against the appellants. In the circumstances I am of the view that joining of the appellants as party to the rent proceedings is in the interest of respondent No, 1 herself.
7. ' Respondents Nos 2 to 6 do not appear to be necessary parties to this appeal, because any order that can be passed in this appeal would not affect their interest. I, therefore, strike off the names of respondents Nos. 2 to 6 from this appeal with the result that C.M.A. 1042/94 and C.M.A. 1043/94 have become infructuous and they are dismissed as such.
8. ' As result of above discussion, I accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order and order the appellants to be joined as opponents to the Rent Case No, 444/93. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. ' The parties to the rent proceedings as well as the appellants are given direction to appear before the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge Central, Karachi on 20-10-1994 either personally or through their Advocates. No Court notice would be issued to them. Learned Rent Controller may see that the matter be disposed of preferably within a period of three months.