S.R. RABBANI, J.-- In 1985, present respondent No. 2 filed rent case No. 1206 in the Court of IlIrd Sr.
Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, against one Adam Ghani in respect of a tenement in the building on Plot No. G-K. 14 and 15, G. Allah Road, Khardar, Karachi. Subsequently, it was found that Adam Ghani was dead. His widow filed written statement and challenged maintainability of the rent case. Since, Adam Ghani was dead, present respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Rent Controller for joining present petitioners, who are sons and daughter of said Adam Ghani, as opponents. The Rent Controller ordered joining of the present petitioners in the rent case as opponents on 19.7.1990. This Order of the Rent Controller was called in question through the present petition, which was filed on 9.9.1990.
2. The record shows that on the first date of hearing, when the petition was placed before the Court, it was observed that the point involved in the petition was very short and, therefore, a preadmission notice was ordered to the respondents. However, respondent No. 2 could not be served and, on 28.11.1990, the petition was admitted for regular hearing, and proceedings before the Rent Controller were stayed. Since, thereafter, respondent No. 2 never appeared to contest the matter. The operation of the impound order was also stayed on 16.10.1991. After that date, the petition was never fixed before the Court till 24.9.1998. Since an interim stay order was already operating for the benefit of the petitioners, the petition was never pursued seriously and continued to be adjourned from one date to another.
3. Now, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The point involved is really very short The delay, causing injustice, is due to the procedure being adopted for disposal of the petitions. The fact necessitates re-examination of the wisdom behind the procedure provided for hearing and disposal of the Constitutional petitions and other matters of the like nature. In almoet all such cases, same arguments are advanced and repeated at the stage of admission and at regular hearing. Such matters can be disposed of and decided finally at the initial stage after notice to respondents, without a formal stage of admission (Katca Peshi). Since these matters do no involve recording of evidence. Etc., there is no justification for consideration of the same arguments at two different stages, years apart from each other. The office it directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for consideration of amendment of the procedure for the purpose.
4. As regards merits of this petition, the petitioners themselves say that the tenant, late Adam Ghani, was their father and they are living in the tenement in dispute. The counsel for the petitioners simply contends that they were ordered to be joined in the rent case without a prior notice to them. The grievance is absolutely devoid of justification, because their joinder itself was a notice to them to contest the claim and case of the applicant/respondent No. 2. They were ordered to be joined only to provide them an opportunity to contest the case. It is a situation like a case where a fresh rent case is filed against the tenants. There is no illegality whatsoever in the order passed by the Rent Controller for their joinder. They filed, and prolonged, this petition, after they got a stay order in their favour, for the benefit. Of continuance of their possession of the disputed premises. The petition is absolutely without merits and is dismissed accordingly.
5. Since the respondent No. 2 is not before this Court, office is directed to intimate the Rent Controller/respondent No. 1, immediately, that the stay orders, granted in this case. Have been vacated.