P L D 1955 Baluchistan 19 (PLP)

R. K. M. SAKER, J. C.

This is a revision petition filed by Sher Bahadur, defendant-petitioner, against an order passed in appeal by the District Judge in Baluchistan, with regard to a matter which purported to fall within the provisions of the Rent Control Regulation. In the Court of first instance, the learned Sub-Judge, Quaetta passed a decree for arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 130, but came to the conclusion that the plaintiff respondents had failed to make out a case for eviction from the property. On appeal the learned District judge modified the order of the lower Court on the grounds that Regulation II of 1945, which is the Rent Control Regulation, was not applicable to the case. A study of the record indicates that the plaint was filed under the provisions of the Rent Control Regulation. The defendant in his written statement, however, alleged that the suit did not fall within the scope of the Rent Control Regulation. Despite this allegation the original Court proceeded to frame issues as if the suit was governed by the Rent Control Regulation. On 22nd September, 1953, the defendant applied for framing an issue-whether the land was within the Municipal limits of Quaetta and also wanted to lead evidence to this effect. This application was rejected by the Court. On 24th September, 1953, the defendant applied for the amendment of his written statement. This request was also rejected on the same day. The suit was then disposed of as if it were governed by the Rent Control Regulation. In accepting the appeal, the learned District judge came to the conclusion that the land in dispute did not fall within the definition of "premises" appearing in the Rent Control Regulation and consequently modified the order of the original Court and ordered the eviction of the petitioner. There has been obvious confusion throughout in the manner in which the two Courts below have dealt with this case. It is a question of fact whether the Rent Control Regulation applies to the area in question or not, and while in the normal course of events this Court, in the exercise of its revisional powers, would not interfere, it is apparent that no opportunity has been given to the parties by the lower Courts to lead evidence on this important point. If the Rent Control Regulation is applicable to this case, the suit will be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation. If the Regulation does not apply, the suit is one for simple arrears of rent and eviction without being governed by any of the provisions of the Rent Control Regulation. In my view therefore, the Appellate Court has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in coming to a conclusion of facts without giving the parties concerned opportunity to argue the point and, if necessary, to lead evidence in substantiation of their respective contentions. Finally, the record does not disclose with any degree of accuracy exactly what premises have been constructed on the land in dispute and for what purposes these premises had been built. From a cursory examination of the evidence on this point it appears that a third party appears to have constructed a building on this land, though the evidence is silent about what use these premises were ultimately put to. It is there fore a matter of argument whether or not the premises so built fell within the word "premises" appearing in the Rent Control Regulation, if indeed this Regulation is the law governing the case in dispute. In these circumstances I consider that this is a fit and proper case in which I should set aside the judgments of the two Courts below and remand it to the original Court for fresh decision after recording evidence on the issues mentioned hereafter. The Rent Control Regulation has, under Notification No. 2408-G/45, dated 28th February, 1945, been made appli cable to the Municipal limits of Quaetta, excluding the areas included for the purposes of section 113-A of the Quaetta Municipal Law, 1896. It will therefore be necessary for the Court to which this case is remanded to come to a decision whether the area in question lies within the Municipal limits to which the Rent Control Regulation' has been made applicable or not. For facility of reference while remanding the case I direct that the lower Court will give its finding on the follow ing two issues :- (1) Does the land in dispute lie within the limits of Quaetta Municipal area ? (2) If so, has the land been leased out specifically for business or trade. The parties to this case will bear their own costs. A. H.