Javed Iqbal, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.12.2001 passed by learned High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of respondent-landlord has been partly accepted and the case was remanded to the learned Rent Controller for the determination of Issues Nos, 3 and 4 concerning personal requirement of the respondent-landlord.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to family settlement all the co-owners entered into agreement (Ex. A/1) whereby the shop in question fell into the share of Abdul Manaf (respondent-landlord) and his two brothers namely Musa Jan and Agha Jan and nephews namely Suleman and Abdul Rehman sons of Bismillah. Pursuant to the agreement (Ex. A/1) executed between the parties a legal notice was issued to the petitioner apprising him about the partition of the property and eviction was also sought on account of personal bona fide use of the respondent-landlord. The eviction application was contested and the divergent pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-- "(i) Whether the application is not maintainable in view of preliminary objections 'A' and B' of written statement?
(ii) Whether the applicant has become the owner of the premises by means of agreement/partition deed?
(iii)Whether the applicants need this shop in good faith for his personal use to start his own business in the same?
(iv) Whether the applicant is entitle for relief claimed for?
(v) Relief?"
3. After recording the evidence pro and contra the learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application by means of judgment dated 27.9.2000. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred by the respondent-landlord which has partly been accepted and case remanded to learned Rent Controller to determine Issues Nos, 3 and 4 concerning the personal requirement of respondent- landlord, hence this petition.
4. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Basharatullah, learned Sr. ASC on behalf of petitioner that factum of partition could not be proved by the respondent-landlord by adducing cogent and concrete evidence which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Balochistan which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice as the property in question was not devolved either upon the respondent-landlord or other co-owners. It is also contended that the family settlement/agreement (Ex.A/1) was not got registered hence it has no legal sanctity whatsoever and even it cannot be looked into for collateral purposes. It is argued that the document (Ex.A/1) being unregistered does not confer any right or title to the respondent-landlord and thus no eviction application could have been filed by him: In order to substantiate the above- mentioned contentions reliance has been placed on cases titled Kora Mal v. Fazal All (AIR 1934 Lahore 759), Velusami u. Velusami (AIR 1962 Madras 153), Sher Ali Khan v. Zarnaush (1994 M LD 2458), Abdul Jelani u. Mst. Janat Bibi (1999 M LD 3331). Mr. Basharatullah learned Sr. ASC has taken serious exception to the non-registration of the partition deed (Ex. A/1).
5. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have perused the judgment dated 27.9.2000 passed by learned Rent Controller Quetta as well as the judgment impugned. We have thoroughly scanned the entire evidence which has come on record. We are not persuaded to agree with Mr. Basharatullah, learned Sr. ASC that the partition of property by way of family arrangement by means of settlement/agreement (Ex. A/1) dated 19.4.2000 is compulsorily registerable and in absence of registration the ownership could not have been devolved upon the respondent- landlord and eviction application could not have been filed by him having no locus standi simply for the reason that such family settlement is saved from inadmissibility in evidence due to the elimination of sub-clause (c) from Section 49 of the Registration Act and the prohibition contained in Section 49 would no longer be operative. A careful perusal of partition document (Ex. A/1) executed between the parties would reveal that the property has been distributed by way of family arrangements. If the parties are not interested in partition. of property on permanent transfer basis they cannot be forced or compelled to do so as it depends upon their whims and wishes to distribute the property in any manner as may be deemed fit and proper being their personal and family affair. In such an eventuality the question of registration of such agreement does not arise. If any authority is required reference can be made to case titled Jahanzeb & others v. Muhammad Abbas (1999 SCM R 2182).
6. We have also adverted to the second limb of the argument as advanced by Mr. Basharatullah learned Sr. ASC on behalf of petitioner that in absence of registration of agreement (Ex. A/1) the respondent-landlord has no locus standi to file the eviction application which appears to be without any substance because ejectment application can be moved by one landlord and it is not essential for him to obtain permission in writing from his co-landlord-co-owners as he has locus standi to file ejectment application alone being co-owner. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in case titled Khalique Ahmed v. Abdul Ghani (PLD 1973 SC 214). It is not the case of Mr. Basharatullah, learned Sr. ASC that respondent-landlord is a stranger having no concern whatsoever with the ancestral property which admittedly devolved upon all the legal heirs and respondent-landlord is one of them. It is wroth mentioning here at this juncture that the question of title has no relevancy in the proceedings in rent case as the pivotal point needs determination would be the relationship of landlord and tenant which would be the only determining factor because a tenant has absolutely no legal right to raise any objection regarding the partition of property or the manner in which it was so made as it would have no substantial effect on the factum of his tenancy and his status would remain as tenant. The provisions as contained in Section 12(2) of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 also provides that the term 'landlord' also covers a case where several persons are jointly owners or landlords within the meaning of the definition of landlord. If any authority is required reference can be made to case titled Nek Muhammad v. Muhammad Shafi (1983 SCM R 180). There is no cavil with the proposition that anyone of the co-sharer of the property can file ejectment application against the tenant and similarly any co-owner can also file such application. (Ghulam Rasul v. Bakhtawar (1981 SCM R 193).
7. The question as to whether the shop in question is required by the respondent-landlord for personal bona fide need, requires determination and this case has rightly been remanded to the learned Rent Controller for doing the needful. The authorities cited by Mr. Basharatullah, Sr. ASC being distinguishable are not applicable in this case. The judgment impugned being well based and unexceptionable hardly warrants any interference. The petition being merit less is dismissed and leave refused.