1989 PLP 1242 (CLC)

A Dewan Bashir Ahmad Khan for Appellant. Khalilur Rehman for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th September, 1988. This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order dated 9th May, 1987 of Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi West, whereby rent application of the respondent has been allowed. This is the second round of the case. In the first instance, the Rent Controller dismissed the Rent Application to which the respondent filed First Rent Appeal No.1164/1984 and this Court by an order dated 27‑3‑1986 remanded the case back and observed as under:‑ "Before this Court this appeal was fixed for regular hearing alongwith hearing of two Miscellaneous Applications. C.M.A. 1880/1985 is application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. in which it is prayed that the tenant be allowed to produce P. T. I. of property Form showing that Shop No.9 is in occupation of landlord and Shop ,No.la is vacant. Tenant is allowed to produce this document before the learned Rent Controller, who would decide the question strictly according to law And merits. Both the parties can be heard on the factual and legal sides arising from this document. In the result this application stands disposed of as allowed. C . M. A . No.1806/ 1985 is again an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. in which the prayer is that the tenant be allowed to produce P.T.I. in respect of House No.P‑19, Block No.10 Federal "B" Area, Karachi showing that property is owned and occupied by the landlord. Tenant is allowed to produce this document before the Rent Controller who would hear both sides on this point and then decide strictly according to law and merits. This 'application stands disposed of as allowed. In the result as stated above impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded for hearing of fresh arguments to be advanced by both the parties and production of documents in the terms stated above, after which the learned Rent Controller can pass whatever order, he deems fit and proper strictly according to law and merits of this case. The learned Rent Controller is also directed to dispose of this case within two months." Before the Rent Controller, appellant filed an application on 5‑5‑1986 alongwith two documents. Thereafter the respondent was allowed to examine two witnesses; namely, Yaseen and Shamim in rebuttal. The appellant also made an application on 10th July, 1986 in which it was prayed that he may be allowed to call some persons from the Office of the Assistant Director (Land) K . M . C . to prove the ownership of the said shop. This application was dismissed by the Rent Controller by order dated 14th September, 1986. Again on 7‑3‑1987 by consent of both the counsel, the application was allowed and it was ordered that summons be issued to the concerned Assistant Director. The respondent moved another application dated 30‑3‑1987 for re‑calling the earlier order. The same was allowed by the Rent Controller on the ground that P.T. I, had already been produced. I have heard Mr. Dewan Bashir Ahmad, Advocate, for the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Rent Controller has allowed the respondent to examine the witnesses, but his application, which was allowed by consent, was again dismissed and the Rent Controller has not given a chance to the appellant to prove the genuineness of those documents. Mr. Khalilur Rehman has submitted that order of this Court was to the extent of limited point and he has examined two witnesses in rebuttal as a matter of right. In the order of the High Court, no party was allowed t adduce any evidence, but it was observed that arguments be heard on the factual and legal points. However, now the Rent Controller has allowed the respondent to examine two witnesses without filing application on his behalf. On the other hand, the application of the appellant, which was dismissed, was subsequently allowed by consent and that order was also re‑called. In all fairness when the respondent was allowed to examine two witnesses in rebuttal, the appellant should have been given chance to examine the concerned officer to prove A the genuineness of the documents,. In the interest of justice. I remand the case back to the Rent Controller and direct him to summon the persons concerned in terms of the application dated 10th July, 198 and decide this Rent Case within 3 months.

2. This application for restoration of possession filed by the appellant is not being pressed by Mr. Dewan Bashir Ahmad at this stage, which is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The case be sent to the District Judge concerned who may make over the case to the Rent Controller having jurisdiction. M.Y.H./K‑22/K Case remanded.