1992 PLP 1209 (CLC)

Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi for Petitioner. Ch. Sanaullah Bajwa for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the judgment dated 28‑1‑1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, whereby he set aside the order dated 5‑10‑1985 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gujranwala, allowing the application filed , by the petitioner for eviction of respondent No.2 from House No.B‑XXVI 19‑S‑35 Kachi Pump Wali, Gujranwala City.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner claims to have purchased Property No.B‑XXVI‑19‑S‑35, Kachi Pump Wali, Guiranwala City on the basis of a sale‑deed dated 30‑3‑1982 from one Muhammad Sohaib. Thereafter, he filed an application for eviction of respondent No.2 from the disputed house. The learned Rent Controller, in view of pleadings of the parties, issues framed there under and evidence led by them, recorded a finding of fact that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Consequently, respondent No.2 was ordered to be evicted from the house in dispute vide order dated 5‑10‑1985, passed by the learned Rent Controller. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, vide order dated 29‑1‑1986 set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller. The operative part of his judgment reads thus:‑ "6. ' After hearing arguments and going through the record, firstly I find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner had failed to connect his title with the House No. B XXVI‑19‑S‑35 or that the appellant was in possession of the property in dispute as a tenant under the petitioner or his predecessor. Moreover, according to the statement of A.W.1, the appellant had since shifted her residence in her own house and as such she was no longer in possession and consequently the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties at the time of fling of the petition."

3. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge would show that he failed to apply his mind while passing the impugned order and accepted the appeal merely on the basis of a bald observation that he agreed with the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent herein.

4. Be that as it may, Mr. Sanaullah Bajwa, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that neither Mst. Inayat Begum respondent No.2 nor her attorney Abdul Waheed claims property bearing No.B‑XXVI‑19‑S‑35 in respect of which ejectment order has been passed. If the order passed by learned Rent Controller in respect of the property in question is executed the respondent has no objection, in that, subsequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 28‑1‑1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Abdul Waheed, Special Attorney of Mst. Inayat Begum, respondent herein, purchased property bearing No.B‑XXVI‑S‑19‑37 from one Kh. Mehraj Din and the same is in her possession. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28‑1‑1986 of the learned Additional District Judge is 8 quashed. The result is that the order dated 5‑10‑1985 passed by the learned Rent Controller shall hold the field. The writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs. A.A./M‑260/L Petition accepted.