1991CLC1421 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Tenant in his appeal was allowed to produce additional evidence on question of default while no such opportunity was afforded to landlord to produce evidence in rebuttal ‑‑‑Effect‑‑ Counsel of parties agreed that case was to be remanded to Appellate Court so as to afford opportunity to landlord to produce evidence in rebuttal‑‑‑Finding of Appellate Court was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑‑Case was remanded to Appellate Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. Sh. Naveed Shaharyar for Petitioner. Muhammad Rashid and Mian Muhammad Arshad Tanvir for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 29th April, 1991. On 2nd of March, 1981 application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, .1959 was filed by respondent No.l against the petitioner with respect to a shop situated in Railway Road, Gujrat which is in possession of respondent No.l as a tenant under the petitioner at the rate of Rs.150 per month. The eviction was sought on the grounds that respondent No.1 had defaulted in payment of rent from November, 1980 to February, 1981; that the shop was required by the petitioner for his own use and that the respondent had caused damage to the shop. All, these grounds were controverted by respondent No.l by filing a written statement which led to the framing of four issues.

2. In order to prove the case the petitioner produced Sher Alam as A.W. 1, Ali Asghar as A.W. 2 and himself appeared as A.W.3. In rebuttal the respondent produced Muhammad Ishaq as R.W.1, Abdul Ghafoor as R.W. 3 while he himself appeared as R.W.2. The Rent Controller by means of order, dated 23rd of November, 1983 held the respondent to be a defaulter in the payment of rent and directed his eviction on this ground. The issue as regards bar was not pressed while issue No.3 relating the personal need was found against the landlord.

3. Aggrieved by this order the respondent‑tenant filed an appeal which was accepted by the Addl. District Judge on 23rd of September, 1984.

4. Mr. Naveed Shahrayar, Advocate has contended that the petitioner, while arguing the appeal filed by respondent No.l had challenged the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No.3 regarding personal use but the Addl. District Judge has not recorded any finding on this issue. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the finding on issue No.3 was challenged by the petitioner but according to the learned counsel, the said issue has been decided by the Addl. District Judge. Perusal of the order of the Addl. District Judge however does not bear out' the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.l. The order of the Addl. District Judge is completely silent about the ground of personal need. In these circumstances there is no option but to remand the r case for re‑decision to the Addl. District Judge.

5. Another reason for which the matter has to be remanded to the Additional District Judge is that while recording the finding on issue of default he took into notice the additional evidence produced by the respondent but he gave no opportunity to the petitioner to produce any evidence in rebuttal. Faced with this situation both the learned counsel are of the view that the matter will have to be remanded to the Addl. District Judge.

6. As a result of what has been stated above the judgment of the Addl. District Judge, dated 23rd of September, 1984 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the appeal filed by respondent No.1 shall be deemed to be pending before him. The parties shall appear before the District Judge, Gujrat on 21st May, 1991 who may either hear this appeal himself or entrust this appeal to some Addl. District Judge, Gujrat. AA./G‑448/L Case remanded.