📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a dispute over who should be allowed to participate in a rent appeal case in Gujrat.
Background: A landlord (Muhammad Qayyum and others) had won an eviction order against tenants who denied being tenants at all. One of the tenants, Salma Kausar, appealed this eviction order to the Additional District Judge.
While that appeal was pending, a third person—Iftikhar Ahmad Khan (the petitioner)—tried to join the case. He claimed he had purchased the same property through a separate government order (from the Board of Revenue) and argued that since he was now the rightful owner, he should be added as a party to the rent appeal. However, he admitted that a civil suit challenging the original owners' title documents (and his own claim) was still pending in a civil court.
Court's Decision: The Lahore High Court upheld the lower court's refusal to add him as a party. The court reasoned that a rent appeal is meant to resolve landlord-tenant disputes, not to settle competing ownership claims. Since Khan wasn't claiming to be a co-owner alongside the existing landlords, but rather claimed a completely separate, rival title to the property, the rent appeal was the wrong forum for him to establish his ownership. That question belonged in the civil court where the title dispute was already pending.
Why It Matters: This ruling clarifies that rent courts handle tenancy issues, not property ownership disputes. Anyone claiming ownership must pursue that claim in civil court, not by inserting themselves into unrelated
یہ مقدمہ گوجرانوالہ... معذرت، گوجرانوالہ نہیں بلکہ گوجرات میں کرایہ داری کی اپیل میں شرکت کے حق سے متعلق ایک تنازعے پر مبنی تھا کہ اس مقدمے میں کسے فریق بنائے جانے کی اجازت دی جانی چاہیے۔
پس منظر: ایک مالک مکان (محمد قیوم اور دیگر) نے اُن کرایہ داروں کے خلاف بے دخلی کا حکم حاصل کر لیا تھا جو سرے سے اپنے کرایہ دار ہونے سے ہی انکاری تھے۔ ان کرایہ داروں میں سے ایک، سلمیٰ کوثر نے، اس بے دخلی کے حکم کے خلاف ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج کی عدالت میں اپیل دائر کی۔
جب یہ اپیل زیرِ سماعت تھی تو ایک تیسرا شخص—افتخار احمد خان (درخواست گزار)—نے اس مقدمے میں شامل ہونے کی کوشش کی۔ اس کا دعویٰ تھا کہ اس نے یہی جائیداد بورڈ آف ریونیو کے ایک الگ سرکاری حکم کے ذریعے خرید لی ہے، اور چونکہ اب وہی اصل مالک ہے، اس لیے اسے کرایہ داری کی اس اپیل میں فریق بنایا جائے۔ تاہم اس نے خود تسلیم کیا کہ اصل مالکان کے ملکیتی کاغذات (اور ا
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2013 Lahore 519 Present: Abdus Sattar Asghar , J. IFTIKHAR AHMAD KHAN--Petitioner versus MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, etc.--Respondents W.P. No. 16912 of 2013, decided on 3.7.2013. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O. I, R. 10--Constitution of Pakistan , 1973--Art. 199-- Impleadment as a party in rent appeal--Constitutional jurisdiction--Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant--Petitioner was neither landlord nor tenant of disputed property--No case for impleadment in proceedings of rent appeal--Validity--Dispute of title pertaining to property which was subject matter of rent appeal, has yet to be resolved by Court of competent jurisdiction--Petitioner intended to join proceedings in rent appeal not as a co-sharer with landlords rather on basis of separate title adverse who claimed to be landlord in respect of property in dispute, therefore, forum of Distt . Judge hearing rent appeal was not available to petitioner to arrest his ownership or title in disputed property--Appellate Court had rightly dismissed application for his impleadment as party in rent appeal--In absence of any perversity, jurisdictional error, factual or legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in impugned order, petitioner had no case to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court--Petition was dismissed. [P. 521] A & B 1986 SCMR 1276 & 1989 SCMR 205, rel. Mr. Waseem Ibne Saeed , Advocate for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 3.7.2013. Order Petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to impugn the order dated 07.6.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge Gujrat whereby petitioner's application for his impleadment as a party in rent appeal, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that on 29.6.2005 Muhammad Qayyum and others/Respondents No. 1 to 4 lodged an ejectment petition against Respondents No. 5 to 12. Respondents No. 5 to 12 denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller after framing of issues and recording parties' evidence accepted the ejectment petition with a direction to Respondents No. 5 to 12 to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the Respondents No. 1 to 4 within one month. Salma Kausar Respondent No. 12 being aggrieved assailed the eviction order through appeal before the learned Additional District Judge Gujrat .
3. During the pendency of appeal petitioner lodged an application for his impleadment asserting that on the basis of an order dated 25.6.2011 passed by Member (Judicial-V) Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member (Residual Properties)/Notified Officer, Punjab, he has purchased the disputed property comprising an area measuring 4« marlas bearing Khasra No. 1810/1748 situated at Nawan Shah Pur ; Gujrat forming part of Madrassa Jamia Ghousia Naeemia , Gujrat and that PT-I on the basis whereof Respondents No. 1 to 5 claimed their ownership has also been challenged by him through a separate civil suit pending adjudication. Application was resisted by Respondents No. 1 to 5 with the contentions that dispute of title of the disputed property is yet to be resolved by the Civil Court where respondent's suit is pending adjudication and that the petitioner was neither a landlord nor tenant of the disputed property therefore he has no case for impleadment in the proceedings of rent appeal.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being bona fide purchaser of the disputed property has got a right to be impleaded as party in the proceedings of the pending rent appeal; that the learned Additional District Judge has failed to apply his judicious mind while passing the impugned order against law and facts, without appreciating the material available on the record which is untenable and liable to set aside.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Record reveals that petitioner himself has admitted that his suit for declaration etc. on the basis of alleged purchase against the respondents is pending adjudication in the Civil Court . It is therefore obvious that the dispute of title pertaining to the property which is subject matter of the rent appeal, has yet to be resolved by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Petitioner intended to join the proceedings in the rent appeal not as a co-sharer with the respondents/landlords rather on the basis of separate title adverse to the respondents who claimed to be landlord in respect of the property in dispute therefore forum of the learned Additional District Judge hearing the rent appeal was not available to the petitioner to assert his ownership or title in the disputed property. Learned Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the petitioner's application for his impleadment as party in the rent appeal. Reliance be made upon:--( i ) Raza Hussain Vs. District Judge, Vehari and others (1986 SCMR 1267) (ii) Nawabuddin Vs. Qamar Oil Mills through its Proprietor represented by his Legal Heirs and others (1989 SCMR 205).
6. The impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge does not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of the material available on the record. In the absence of any perversity, jurisdictional error, factual or legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in the impugned order the petitioner has no case to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
7. For the above reasons, this constitutional petition is dismissed in limine . (R.A.) Petition dismissed