1. ' Having purchased the property, mentioned in Para.1 of the writ petition, by means of a registered document dated 5-5-2001, the petitioner, in the first instance, served a notice on respondent No,2, a tenant occupying the premises in question and thereafter on 20-6-2001 filed an application for his ejectment therefrom. The ejectment was sought, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The said respondent put in appearance and filed a written statement stating that it is his son who is the tenant. Consequently the respondent No,3 was impleaded and amended ejectment petition was filed on 21-11-2002. The added respondent filed his written reply. On 21-11- 2002 the pleadings were examined by the learned Rent Controller. He found that the relationship of landlord and tenant stands admitted and proceeded to pass an order directing the said respondent to deposit the rent in terms of section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1961. On 3-6-2003 the respondent No,4 filed an application stating that he is a co-owner in the property and has also filed a suit for partition and as such he be impleaded as a party. The application was resisted but was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 3-7-2003.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the case of Muhammad Hanif and another v.
3. Muhammad Jamil Turk and 5 others 2002 SCM R 429 contends that notwithstanding the denial on the part of the petitioner of the said claim of the respondent No,4 of being a co-owner in the property, even if he be assumed to be a co-owner, he would not he a necessary party to an ejectment petition filed by the petitioner to eject a tenant when he is admittedly a co-owner in the property. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 to 4, on the other hand, contends that one co- owner cannot file an ejectment petition without impleading the other co-owners.
4. ' It should not take me long to resolve the controversy. The said judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner confirms the earlier view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Khalique Ahmed v. Abdul Ghani and another PLD 1973 SC 214. In the said judgment their Lordships drew a distinction between a suit by a co-owner for possession of joint property occupied by a trespasser and an application filed by a co-owner on any of the grounds available in the said statute governing the relationship of landlords and tenants. Their Lordships observed that whereas it would be necessary to implead the other co-owners in a suit for possession, it will not at all be necessary to implead the co-owners in an application filed by one or more of them for the ejectment of a tenant.
5. ' In the present case as noted by me above, there is no denial that the petitioner is the landlord while the said other respondents or respondent No,3 are tenants. Orders have been passed for deposit of rent and issues covering the pleadings have been framed which are to be tried by the learned Rent Controller. In this state of affairs the respondent No,4 is not at all a necessary or even a proper party.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 to 4 then contends that this is an interlocutory order and it would be against the spirit of the provision of appeal in the said Cantonments Rent Restriction Act to entertain this writ petition against an order of the said nature. Now the statement may be generally correct but in the present case I find that the learned Rent Controller has passed the order in direct violation of the law continuously laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and this renders said impugned order of the learned Rent Controller to be without lawful authority. The writ petition accordingly is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Rent Controller is declared to be without lawful authority and is accordingly set aside. No orders as to costs.