1995 PLP 797 (MLD)

M. Sher Awan for Appellant. Khursheed Anwar for Respondent. This is landlord's appeal against dismissal of his Rent Case No.77/91 by Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment Board, Karachi, under an order, dated 22‑9‑1992. Admittedly shop in litigation bearing No.4 of Plot No.8/8, street No.16, Punjab Colony, Karachi, is in possession of the respondent as tenant of the appellant on monthly rent of Rs.700. Rent Case No.77/91, was filed on 23‑11‑1991 for eviction of the respondent, from the shop in litigation on three grounds, firstly that the respondent had defaulted in payment of rent and electricity charges from August, 1991 and that the respondent had constructed a wooden cabin in front of the shop at the footpath and had committed an act likely to materially impair value and utility of the shop and that he had sublet the cabin to some person, who was doing business. The rent application was opposed by the respondent, who in his written statement stated that Masoodul Islam was the original tenant and on his death the tenancy devolved on all the legal heirs of Masoodul Islam. All the grounds for eviction were controverted. After recording evidence of parties, the Rent Controller passed the impugned order, dismissing the application. Hence this appeal. I have heard Mr. M. Sher Awan, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Khurshed Anwar, Advocate for the respondent: While deciding the rent application under the impugned order dated 22‑9‑1992, the Rent Controller has discussed evidence on the basis of issues about default and about subletting. He has not discussed the ground of alleged commission of an act likely to materially impair value and utility of the shop. There is no explanation as to, why such ground was not discussed. While recording cross‑examination of the respondent's witness Wasim Masood, the Rent Controller chose to close cross‑examination of said witness on the ground that counsel for the respondent had objection to proceeding of the cross‑examination. Not only this, but the trial Court even closed side of the respondent, leaving it open for learned counsel for the respondent to file his objection through a proper statement. Such act by the trial Court was unjustified and unwarranted by law. Learned Rent Controller had no power or, competency to close cross‑examination of Wasim Masood due to some objection from counsel for the 'respondent. Moreover, the trial Court had no competency to close side of the respondent, without assigning any reason. For the foregoing reasons, I accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Additional Controller of Rents Clifton Cantonment for disposal according to law. Additional Rent Controller is required to re‑call Wasim Masood and allow learned; counsel for the appellant to cross‑examine him and then provide fresh opportunity to the respondent's side to adduce evidence, if desired. After doing needful, the trial Court has to re‑decide the matter under a proper order, which should also contain the discussion about allegation of the appellant that the respondent had committed an act likely to materially impair the value and utility of the stop in dispute. There shall be no order as to cost. The parties are required to appear before the Additional Controller of Rents Clifton Cantonment, either personally or through their counsel on 30‑4‑1994. H.B.T./G‑375/K Appeal accepted.