2015 PLD 226 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

HASHMAT TAJ VS Mrs. SURAYYA TARIQ 1968 SCMR 828, 1986 CLC 975, 2013 PLC (C.S.) 1089, PLD 1991 SC 165, PLD 1994 Lah. 252, Appeal--TERM , Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--17 , Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--24 , Ejectment petition--term , Maintainability--TERM , Ss. 24 & 17---Ejectment petition---Appeal---Maintainability---"Aggrieved party"---Scope---Petitioner moved application for impleading him as a party but same was dismissed on the ground that he had no "locus standi"---Contention of petitioner was that he was sub-tenant and was occupying the demised premises under agreement executed by the original tenant---Validity---Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 was a special law which would prevail upon the general law---Petitioner did not fall within the interpretation of term "aggrieved party" as party could be a person aggrieved but a person who might be affected by a judgment or order of a lis could not be considered as an "aggrieved party"---Petitioner had entered into the property in dispute during the pendency of eviction petition and was not sub-tenant at the time of filing of the same---Petitioner had no rent agreement in his favour rather he had sale agreement in his favour executed by the original tenant who had no authority to enter into such agreement on behalf of landlord---Petitioner was approbating and reprobating at the same time---Rent agreement and agreement to sell were two different things---Petitioner could not claim ownership over the demised premises if he was sub-tenant and could approach the competent court for redressal of his grievance against the original tenant---Petitioner had no locus standi to file present appeal---Impugned order had attained finality---Appeal was not maintainable and same was dismissed accordingly.