1. Through this Constitutional petition Ghulam Sarwar petitioner has challenged order dated 8-5- 1997 passed by the Rent Controller Dera Ghazi Khan whereby the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. moved by the petitioner for rejection of the ejectment petition with respect to the shop situate at D.G. Khan City brought by the respondents Nos.3 to 6 against him has been rejected and the order dated 24-6-1997 passed by the Appellate Court in revision against the aforementioned order has also been dismissed as being corum non judice, unlawful and void, challenging as also the impugned ejectment proceedings in toto thereof as such.
2. 2.Pre-admission notice was given to the respondents and they have contested the petition.
3. 3.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. 4.In the ejectment petition brought by the respondents against the petitioner the main question to be determined is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties or not, relating to the shops in dispute. The shops in dispute form part of 10 of the shops owned by the petitioner and their co-sharers. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents purchased the shops in dispute from one of those co-sharers. The petitioner has brought a suit for possession by pre-emption against the aforementioned sale alleging superior right of pre-emption on the basis of being co-sharer and the same is also pending between the same Rent Controller as co-sharer.
5. Both the actions are being separately tried and would, of course, so disposed of by the Trial Court.
6. In the ejectment petition as discussed above, the Trial Court would decide first the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and then would make an order of eviction. Otherwise also the status of the petitioner in the pre-emption suit does not stand prejudiced with the decision of the ejectment application except that on having become successful in the pre-emption suit he will have to seek its possession from respondents Nos.3 to 6.
7. In pre-emption suit the entitlement to get possession also vests in the decree holder at the time of passing of the decree and not before that. Moreover, in this writ petition the interlocutory order has been impugned. In case Bashir Ahmad Khan v. Malik Mehdi Khan and another (1987 CLC 1620) it is laid down as follows:-- "There is yet another aspect of the case. The impugned order admittedly interlocutory in nature against which no appeal has been provided. If the legislature in its wisdom has not thought it fit to provide the remedy of appeal against an interlocutory order, it cannot be permitted to be agitated in writ jurisdiction as that would amount to defeating the legislative intent."
8. 5.In case Mst. Bashir Begum v. Syed Ijaz Hussain (PLD 1995 Lahore 392) while referring to case Messrs Shahzad Ice Factory and 2 others v. Special Judge Banking (II), Lahore and another (PLD 1982 Lahore 92), Attique-ur-Rehman and others v. Muhammad Aslam (1995 CLC 66 (Lahore) and similar other authorities it has laid down as follows:-- "It was observed that an interlocutory order under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which had not been held by the legislature fit to be appealable could not be challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction and that any practice to the contrary would defeat and deflect the legislative intent which was disapproved by the Supreme Court in Mumtaz Hussain alias Bhutta v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore and another (1976 SCMR 450)." while upholding the same view it is further observed in the abovecited case as follows:-- "6. The precedents referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners reveal that the judgments of the learned Division Bench rendered in Muhammad Saeed's case was not cited before the learned Single Judge. I, therefore, respectfully following the dictum laid down in the aforecited Division Bench case hold that the present writ petition against the interlocutory order of the Rent Controller is not competent and, therefore, the same is dismissed.
9. 6.Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Ahmad Shah v. Mst. Bibi Sakhian and another (PLD 1990 Lahore 48) wherein it has been laid down that the Rent Controller can go into the question where the title pleaded by the tenant can defeat the claim of ejectment made by the landlord but the same observation was given regarding the final decision of the case by the Rent Controller and not against interlocutory order and, therefore the same citation is not applicable to the instant case.
10. 7.While challenging ejectment proceedings in toto the intent of the petitioner is to get the interlocutory orders thereof set aside and the same proceedings which otherwise being valid, cannot be got set aside like that. The seeking of relief to that effect is, as discussed above, pre- mature and not sustainable in law: 8.Consequently, I come to the conclusion that the present petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly.