2018 PLP 125 (YLRN)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

This is Civil First Appeal against decree/ judgment dated 17-08-2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge Hunza, in Civil Suit No.13/2014.

2. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit (Civil Suit No.13/2014) in the trial court, whereby, prayed for a decree of recovery of suit amount (Rs.12,35,518/-) from the appellants/defendants. Appellants contested the suit and pleaded that they have returned the rented premises on 30-10-2012. Appellants have specifically averred that they are not legally bound to pay the amounts of repairing and electricity charges etc. Learned trial court framed the following issues in the light of pleadings of parties:-- ISSUE NO.1. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants to file instant suit? OPD ISSUE NO.2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.? OPD ISSUE NO.3. Whether defendant No.3 has occupied two rooms of "Karakorum Highway Inn" till April 2013 instead of handing over the rented premises after expiry of tenancy period? OPP ISSUE NO.4. Whether defendant No.3 has damaged and caused loss to room carpets, room side table, energy savors door locks and curtains of the rented hotel worth Rs.2,88,280/- in value during the period of tenancy and the same is recoverable from the defendants? OPP ISSUE NO.5. Whether defendant No.3 is liable to pay compensation of damages and lost articles under tenancy agreement? OPP ISSUE NO.6. Whether Rs.1,11,282/- is still outstanding towards the defendants as arrears of electricity? OPP ISSUE NO.7. Whether due to the damages and loss of articles or non-repair of necessary works, by defendant No.3 the said hotel could not be rented out to others as such the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs.30,000/- monthly from 1st November, 2012 till payment of all dues as loss of rent by the defendants? OPP ISSUE NO.8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs.3,25,956/- as cost of the maintenance of the hotel as per assessment made by Executive Engineer B&R Division Hunza/Nagar from the defendant No.3? OPP ISSUE NO.9. Whether the defendants have handed over the suit building to the plaintiff on 30.10.2012 in proper and in previous condition? OPD ISSUE NO.10. Whether the defendants have paid the electricity bill of the suit building for the period from 01.08.2011 to 30.10.2012 within due time? OPD ISSUE NO.11 Whether plaintiff has rented out rooms of the suit building to various private person and government officials after handing over by the defendants? OPD RELIEF.

3. Learned trial court has given his findings on the said issues as under:- Issue No.1 In negative. Issue No.2 In negative. Issue No.3 In negative. Issue No.4 In affirmative. Issue No.5 In affirmative. Issue No.6 In affirmative. Issues No.7 In negative. Issues No.8 In affirmative. Issue No.9 In negative. Issue No.10 In negative. Issue No.11 In affirmative. Relief. Suit decreed.

4. We have thoughtfully considered arguments of the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the material available on file. From minute perusal of findings of the learned trial court on issues Nos.1 to 3, it is evident that learned trial court has given its findings on the said issues in favour of appellants/defendants. We have gone through the findings of the learned trial court on issue No.4, which is very interesting and is based on mere conjectures. In our opinion, evidence of any of the parties must be solid and amounted to proof of any issue. Mere drawing of any kind of inference from any piece of either of the parties, by the PO of the Court is a conjecture. While giving findings on issue No.4, learned trial court has written that:- " ..These letters are considered admitted by Defendants because these letters are neither specifically denied nor challenged by Defendants, which clearly shows that there were liabilities at the end of Defendants. Therefore, this issue is decided in affirmative in the favour of Plaintiff and against Defendants." Likewise, findings of the learned trial court on issue No.5 are also based on mere conjectures and not on any kind of evidence. Mere fact that the rent agreement between the parties (Exh.P/6) is admitted does not amount to any proof of contents of this issue. Findings of the learned trial court on issue No.6 are also wrong, as correctness of the bills marked as Exh.P/ 2 and Exh.P/3 are questioned by the appellants. Learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the payment of said bills or non-payment thereof can be proved through record of the concerned department and learned trial court had every power to check such record. Findings of the learned trial court on issue No.7 are against respondent.

5. We have further found that the learned trial court has failed to frame the issues properly. The questions that remained unanswered are that:-- a) Whether the question raised through the suit is covered by West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance? b) Whether West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance is extended to the district of Hunza or not? c) If the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance is extended to district Hunza, then the question arises that whether trial court had the powers to adjudicate upon the questions raised through the suit as a Rent Controller or as Civil Judge? We find no answer to these questions in the impugned judgment. We, therefore, are inclined to remand the case back to the trial Court with direction to give his findings afresh and that also after reframing the issues and reappraisal of the evidence of the parties, if parties did not opt to adduce further evidence. Learned trial Court is further directed to allow parties to adduce further evidence if parties demanded for the same. Impugned judgment/decree set aside. Appeal allowed accordingly and case remanded back to the trial Court with the above directions. Respondent to bear costs. This file be consigned to record. ZC/191/GB Order accordingly.