1991 PLP 1664 (CLC)

3. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:‑ (1) Whether respondent has become a wilful defaulter in the payment of rent? (2) Whether petitioner requires the disputed property in good faith and bona fide for his personal use? (3) Whether respondent has damaged the disputed property and impaired its value? (4) Relief. After recording the evidence the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent was a defaulter, had damaged the property and further that the property was required by the petitioner for his own use. As a consequence of these findings the ejectment petition was accepted.

3. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No.l went in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Lahore who vide his impugned judgment dated 11th December, 1988 reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on issues Nos.l and 3 regarding default and damage to the property. So far as personal need was concerned, it was observed by the Additional District Judge that the issue framed in this respect did not adequately reflect the controversy between the parties. He, therefore, proceeded to recast the issue and remanded the same for re-decision to the Rent Controller.

4. I have heard Mr. Iqbal Mahmood Awan, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent although it is 1 p.m.

5. There is considerable merits in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional District Judge has acted illegally in setting aside the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No.2 relating to personal need on the ground that the issue had not been framed in its proper form. Apart from the fact that the provisions of C.P.C. are not stricto senso applicable to the proceedings of the Rent Controller, it is to be seen that at no stage of trial was any objection raised by the respondent as to the form of issue. It was, therefore, clearly not open to the Additional District Judge to have remanded the case on such a hyper -technical ground which has resulted in waste of public time and money. The parties were satisfied with the issues framed and went into trial without any objection. The Additional District Judge was under a legal obligation to decide an issue on merits and could not have remanded the case to the Rent Controller. As a result of what has been stated above this petition succeeds, the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 11th December, 1988 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the appeal of respondent No.l shall be deemed to be pending before the District Court and shall be decided afresh. The petitioners shall appear before the District Judge, Lahore, on 1st of June, 1991 who may hear the appeal himself or entrust it to some other Additional District Judge. As the parties have been litigating for number of years it is directed that' the appeal shall be disposed of within the month of June, 1991. H.B.T./A‑1331/L Petition accepted.