' Commercial property bearing Shop No, 662, Aabpara Market, Islamabad is further subdivided in sub-Units Nos. 662/1, 662/2, 662/3, 662/4 and 662/5. Respondents are the owners/landlords on the aforesaid property while the said five sub-units are in possession of four different tenants, as detailed below:--
(i) Sub-Unit No, 662/1 which comprises of a shop on the front side of the building is in the tenancy of Muhammad Shahid who is petitioner in the present Civil Revision No, 175/95, at monthly rental of Rs,800.
(ii) Sub-Unit No, 662/2 which is another shop on the front side of the building is in the tenancy of Salah-ud-Din who is petitioner in connected Revision Petition No, 174/95, at monthly rental of Rs,1,000.
(iii) Sub-Unit No, 662/3 is a shop in the back portion of the building. It is in the tenancy of Muhammad Rafiq, at monthly rental of Rs,500.
(iv) Sub-Unit No, 662/4 is also a shop in the back portion of the building and is under the tenancy of Kamal-ul-Din who is petitioner in the connected Civil Revision No, 173/95, at monthly rent of Rs,500.
(v) Sub-Unit No, 662/5 is a flat on the shops bearing sub-Units Nos. 662/1 and 662/2. It is in the tenancy of Muhammad Rafiq who is petitioner in the connected Civil Revision No, 176/95, at monthly. Rental of Rs .600.
2. Present revision petition pertains to Sub-Unit Shop' No, 662/1 which is in possession of Muhammad Shahid.
3. Initially the said Property No, 662 was owned by Mst. Umtus Subhan Siddiqui who had rented out the same to one Naeem Haideri who unauthorisedly constructed two shops in the backyard and thereafter sublet the entire units to four different persons, as detailed above. Subsequently, the property came in the ownership of the respondents on 25-8-1971 by way of gift from Mst. Umtus Subhan Siddiqui who was their maternal grandmother.
4. The respondents filed a suit for possession on the averment that the petitioner was their tenant and the entire property including the suit shop was needed by them for self-occupation. It was specifically pleaded that respondent No,1 was resident of Karachi and a doctor by profession, he wanted to settle at Islamabad and start his medical practice there. The suit was resisted mainly on the ground that the petitioner "with the consent of the previous owner raised construction/renovation over the suit property worth Rs,50,000 and security Rs,1,00,000 to which he is entitled to get the same from the plaintiff in case of decree in the suit".
' The very ownership of the respondents was also challenged and further that the suit had been filed by unauthorised persons. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-- "(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the possession of the suit property by way of ejectment? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi or cause of action to file this suit? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(4) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
(6) Whether the defendant is entitled to get Rs,50,000 for raising construction on the suit property and Rs,1,00,000 as security from the plaintiff in case of decree? OPD.
(7) Whether the suit is false and frivolous, hence the defendant is entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD.
(7-A) Whether the plaintiffs are not owners of the suit property? OPD.
(8) Relief."
5. Mrs. Hayat Rehman mother and general attorney of the plaintiffs appeared as P.W.1 while Aamer Rehman plaintiff No,1 appeared as P.W.2. P.W.1 stated that the defendant did not pay the rent since August, 1989, plaintiff No,1 is an M.B.,B.S. Doctor. Plaintiffs have no property in Karachi and the property is required for personal use. Power of attorney Exh. P1, notice to the defendant Exh. P2 and lease deed Exh.P3 were also proved by her. In the cross-examination she denied that her mother received the alleged security amount or that she had permitted any construction. P.W.2 stated that he wanted the property for residence and for his clinic. The defendant did not produce any other witness except himself as D.W.1 He stated that his father obtained the Suit Shop No, 662/1 in 1968 from Naeem Haideri as a tenant, at the rate of Rs,350 per month. His father spent Rs,20/25 thousand in further extending the shop. The rent was paid to Naeem Haideri till 1979. Thereafter his father became tenant under Mst. Umtus Subhan Siddiqui at the ?Ate of Rs,400 per month. In 1983 petitioner himself came in exclusive possession of the shop. In 1984 the rent was increased to Rs,800 per month. The rent was paid up to 1989 to Irshad who was auorney of the owners. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Exh. P3 bears his signatures. He further stated that the plaintiffs are children of the daughter of Mst. Umtus Subhan Siddiqui. He further stated that neither he nor Naeem Haideri obtained any permission from the CDA for making construction.
6. The learned trial Court decided issue No,7-A against the defendant and held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the disputed shop and the defendant has been paying rent according to the lease agreement executed in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No, 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and all other preliminary issues were decided against the defendant. Regarding issue No, 6 it was said that the construction was not raised with the consent of the owner and as such it creates no binding liability against the plaintiffs. In view of the findings rendered by him the suit was decreed. The defendant feeling aggrieved against the decree, filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 2-5-1995. This petition under section 115, C.P.0 has been filed to call in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court.
7. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:--
(i) Mrs. Hayat Rehman who has singed the plaint was not competent to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, as she was not their duly authorised agent.
(ii) Lease agreement was made through Irshad Ahmed the attorney of the respondents. Notice Exh.
P2 was also sent through him but the suit has been instituted by Mrs. Hayat Rehman who is not the attorney of the respondents for this property.
(iii) Security amount paid to Naeem Haideri and the renovation expenses incurred are liable to be adjusted or refunded to the defendant before any lawful decree can be passed or executed.
8. On the contrary, Mr. Bashir Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents has made the following submissions:--
(i) The ownership of the plaintiffs/respondents stands admitted in para. No,2 of the written statement.
(ii) Mrs. Hayat Rehman is a duly constituted agent of the plaintiffs as she is their general attorney by virtue of Exh.P1. He has particularly referred to para. No,6 of the general power of attorney, which empowers her to file any case in any Court of law and to eject the tenant.
(iii) There is no proof that any construction was raised or any amount by way of security was paid to the original tenant by the petitioner with the consent of the owner. At any rate, after executing the lease agreement in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs no refund in that behalf can be claimed.
(iv) The plaintiffs want to settle in Islamabad and plaintiff No,1 wants to start his medical practice.
The property, therefore, is required by the plaintiffs and the notice Exh. P2 to vacate the property has been duly proved.
9. So far as the question of ownership of the property is concerned that stands admitted in the written statement. In para. No,1 of the plaint it is claimed that the plaintiffs are owners/landlords of the suit property. This para stands admitted in the written statement. In answer to para. No,2 of the plaint it is stated "later on the present plaintiffs stepped into the shoes of original owner and the defendant is also paying the rent regularly to the plaintiffs". In view of this clear admission in the written statement the ownership and tenancy stand proved.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mrs. Hayat Rehman was not competent to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs is based on two grounds. First, that she was not a duly constituted attorney of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property and secondly, lease agreement was executed on behalf of the landlords by their attorney Irshad Ahmad and only he could have filed the suit. With regard to the first contention it is submitted by the learned counsel that Exh.P1 is a general power of attorney in favour of Mrs. Hayat Rehman but there is no mention of Islamabad property therein. According to him the power of attorney must pertain to, a particular property. Elaborating his argument he submitted that the power has been given to the attorney to represent the plaintiffs before the KDA/KMC/KESC but there is no mention of the CDA and, therefore, the property situated in Islamabad was not intended to be the subject-matter of the power of attorney Exh. P1.
11. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel it will be profitable to make reference to the contents of the general power of attorney. Mrs. Hayat Rehman has been constituted attorney by the plaintiffs "for us in our names and on our behalf in connection with all our movable and immovable properties situated in all over Pakistan, to do all or any of the following".
' Para. No, 6 of the document reads as under:- "To let, sublet our properties whole or part thereof to one person or more as the case may be, to eject the tenant/tenants, to file any case in any Court of law, to defend the same, to pursue it, to go in appeal, revision, review etc. As the case may be, and in this connection to do all other lawful acts required for the same."
It is clear from the above-quoted portions of the power of attorney that Mrs. Hayat Rehman was made attorney for administering the properties of the plaintiff all over Pakistan and for doing many particular things including to file cases in Courts of law for the purpose of ejectment of the tenants from the properties of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to para. No,1 of the power of attorney contended that there is no reference to the CDA, therefore, it is not applicable to properties in Islamabad. This para. Reads as under:-- "To represent us before the K.D.A., K.M.C, K.E.S.C., Sui Gas, Development Authorities, Municipalities, Revenue Department, Telephone Department, Sub-Registrar/Registrar, and or before any other authorities concerned, wherever and whenever our presence are required."
The power of attorney under discussion was executed in 1986. There was no need for mentioning the CDA because the suit property had already been built since before 1971 as is evident from the declaration of gift, copy whereof has been placed on record by the petitioner himself. This document executed on 25-8-1971 shows that the property was comprised of built-up shops and flat. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not feel the necessity of specifically authorising P.W.1 to represent them before the CDA. She was constituted attorney for various purposes mentioned in para. Nos. 1 to 11 in respect of the properties situated all over Pakistan. Para. No,6 specifically dealt with the power to eject tenants and to file any case in any Court of law. Similarly, para. No, 7 authorised her to appoint Advocates etc. Etc. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that Mrs. Hayat Rehman was a duly constituted attorney in respect of the suit property and she could competently file the present suit.
12. The second limb of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel may now be attended to.
It is submitted that Irshad Ahmad who had executed the lease deed on behalf of the landlords as their attorney was the only person who could have acted as attorney on behalf of the plaintiffs to file the present suits. This contention is misconceived. A person can appoint more than one attorney simultaneously or at different times. The lease agreement was executed in 1984 while power of attorney in favour of Mrs. Hayat Rehman was executed subsequently in 1986. She could, therefore, be validly constituted and appointed as the attorney for the purposes stated in the power of attorney Exh. P1. Resultantly, there is no merit in the contention and the same is hereby repelled.
13. The only other point that has been urged before me is that the petitioner should be given adjustment/refund of Rs,1,50,000 which the petitioner spent on the renovation of the shop and by paying money as security to the original owner. This contention too has no merit. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to prove the renovation with the permission of the owner/landlord. Nor did he produce any witness to prove payment of the security amount to Naeem Haideri or that liability thereof was accepted by the respondents or their predecessor-in-interest. Learned lower Courts have rightly decided issue No,6.
14. There is yet another angle on the basis of which this contetion of the learned counsel must be repelled. The petitioner admitted that he became tenant under the plaintiffs by virtue of lease agreement dated 8-8-1984 (Exh. P3). There is no recital with regard to the payment of the security amount to the previous owner or with regard to the construction/improvements made by the petitioner. Nor indeed there is any condition in the lease agreement that the landlord would compensate the petitioner in respect of the said matters. The all important conditions of the lease agreement executed by the petitioner are reproduced below:-- "4. That if either the lessor or the lessee wants to discontinue this agreement dated 8-8-1984 i,e, the lessor wants to have the premises vacated or the lessee wants to vacate the premises, either side has to give two months' written notice for the purpose.
5. That the lessee shall not be authorised to sublet or underlet the demised premises in whole or in part.
6. That the lessee shall on vacating the premises leave the fixture and fittings intact and shall not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever."
15. It may be seen from the above that there is no mention of the reconstruction or payment of security amount in the lease agreement. The relationship of landlord and tenant is to be strictly construed in terms of the lease agreement executed between the parties. The petitioner cannot claim anything beyond what is contemplated by the lease agreement. Accordingly, no relief by way of adjustment or payment of the alleged amount of security etc. Can be granted to the petitioner. This view, of course, is without prejudice to the finding that the petitioner/defendant failed to prove any reconstruction or payment of security with consent of the original owner.
16. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the two Courts below do not suffer from error of jurisdiction. Misreading or non-reading of the record has also not been pointed out. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference by this Court.
17. It must be pointed out that the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Is discretionary in nature. The property is in possession of the petitioner since 1968. He is paying just Rs,800 per month for a shop in the Aabpara Market of Islamabad since 1984. He has already earned much out of the property. Now one of the owners who is a doctor by profession wants to come from Karachi and settle at Islamabad and use the property for residence and his clinic. The owner after all also has a right to the use of his property. Therefore, to me this is not a case in which the revisional jurisdiction should otherwise be exercised in favour of the tenant who has already enjoyed the user of the property for nearly 28 years.
' For what has been discussed above, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.