In this second appeal, order dated 7-5-78 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi has been questioned. The brief facts are that the respondent filed an application against the appellants for ejectment from Property No. W/314, Narankari Bazar, Rawalpindi inter alia on the ground that he requires the building in question bona fide for reconstruction. The other ground taken was default in the payment of rent by each of the appellants who were tenants in various portions of the same building. The application was contested by the appellants who also raised the preliminary objection that the application jointly made against many tenants is bad for misjoinder of causes of action. The following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the application is bad for misjoinder of causes of action? O. P. R.
(2) Whether the respondents paid or duly tendered for payment of the rent for disputed period as alleged in para. 5 of petition? O. P. R.
(3) Whether the petitioner bona fide intend to reconstruct the disputed property? If so whether the petitioner has obtained necessary sanction for such construction?
Out of the above issues, the trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the respondent whilst Issue No. 2 was decided against him. As a result the ejectment application was accepted by order dated 16-5-1977 of the Rent Controller, Rawalpindi who directed the appellants to deliver possession of their respective portions within three months.
2. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, who concurred in the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller, Rawalpindi and dismissed the appeal by his order dated 7-5-1978 impugned in this appeal.
3. Only two contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellants; firstly that there being separate tenements, a joint application was not maintainable and it suffered from misjoinder of causes of action and secondly that the evidence has been misread regarding Issue No. 3 which related to the bona fide requirement of the building in dispute by the respondent for reconstruction. It was submitted that although the approved construction plan has been placed on record, it is not proved that there is bona fide requirement for reconstruction.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel have no force. In so far as the first contention is concerned, both the Courts below have held that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants by a joint trial in respect of this issue. The learned counsel has not been able to show to me as well if any prejudice has been caused. In fact he did not urge anything on this point.
5. Apart altogether from the above position the word "tenant" in section 13(2) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 though used in singular shall include the plural by virtue of section 13(2), of General Clauses Act, 1897 when read in juxtaposition with the provision contained in section 13(2) (vi) of the Ordinance of 1959.
6. Yet another aspect of the matter is that though proceedings before the Rent Controller are not strictly governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, the principles of C. P. C. Especially those which are permissive can and have always been applied in proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance by the Rent Controllers. In the context of this position the provision of Order I, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code could be invoked by the respondent which takes care of the situation and thus no defect in the proceedings can be said to have occurred by making of one application by the landlord against all the tenants in different tenement of the same building, moreso when the cause of action was the same, i. e. Requirement of the building in good faith and reasonably for the reconstruction thereof. There was thus no misjoinder of causes of action as argued by the learned counsel.
7. Regarding the second contention I examined the record and found that the respondent appearing as his own witness has categorically stated that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition and is about 76/80 years old and that he wants to demolish the same for the purposes o a reconstruction. Nothing has been brought out even in cross-examination to show that the requirement was not bona fide. It cannot, therefore, be argued that there was no evidence about the bona fide requirement for reconstruction or that the evidence has been misread on this issue.
8. The above position apart, the provisions of section 13(5) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 are an adequate check against any abuse by the landlord of the provisions of section 13(2) (vi) ibid.
9. In view of the above position, this appeal has no merit and is dismissed.