Find a Lawyer

_‑ ‑ S. 13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Ejectment‑Default in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement First appellate Court omitting to discuss evidence led by parties and giving no reason in support of its findings‑Finding of Rent Controller on issue of bona fide requirement against landlord reversed by first appellate Court on presumption that it was decided by Rent Controller in his favour‑Judgment of first appellate Court suffering from non‑exercise of jurisdiction vested in it and set aside and declared to be of no legal effect.

‑‑ S. 15‑Appeal‑Finality attached to judgment and orders of District/ Additional District Judge passed in appeal‑Presiding officers, held, under obligation to apply conscious mind to legal questions raised before them and decide matters in accordance with law.

M. Ahmad Hasan Khan for Petitioner.

Shahid Hussain Kadri for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Date of hearing : 19th September, 1982.

This Constitutional Petition is directed against the order dated 23rd June, 1982 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal against the order dated 3rd March, 1982 of the learned Rent Controller directing the petitioner's ejectment from the disputed property. .

2. The relevant facts of the case are that Mian Feroze Din, respondent herein filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner from the disputed ‑shops on the grounds of damage, default in payment of rent, to him and bona fide need for his personal use. The ejectment petition was resisted by the petitioner and the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties :‑

(1) Whether no cause of action is available to the petitioner against the respondent O. P. R.

(2) Whether petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his personal use m good faith O. P. P, .,

(3) Whether the respondent has damaged the property in dispute. If so what is its effect O. P. P.

(4) Whether the respondent has committed default in paying or tendering the rent to the petitioner O. P. P.

(5) Relief.

3. The parties led evidence in support of their cases and the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated .3rd March, 1982 allowed the ejectment petition directing the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the disputed property to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of his order. The order was assailed by the petitioner in appeal and the learned first appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 23rd June, 1982 maintained the order of the petitioner's ejectment, from the property in dispute.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned Additional District Judge is not only contrary to the provi sions of Order XLI, rule 31, C. P. C. but shows that he has not read the evidence on record. He has given no reasons in support of his judgment. It is stated that he has failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law, and the impugned judgment is no judgment in the eye of law.

5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent supported the impugned judgment, and stated that the learned Additional District Judge has passed the judgment, after perusal of the record. It is stated that his observations otherwise find support from the evidence on record.

6. I have gone through the impugned judgment with the help of learned counsel for the parties and find sufficient ,force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The conclusion expressed by the first appellate Court and embodied in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment for facility of reference is reproduced hereunder :‑‑

"It stands established from the record that the appellant has committed default in payment of rent and that the respondent was bona fide in need of shops for personal use, therefore, in my opinion the learned Rent Controller was right in coming to the conclusion in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. As such the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

It is evident, that the learned Additional District Judge did no discuss the evidence led by the parties nor gave any reason in support o his findings. It rather shows that he has not read the evidence or a least the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller. The finding of the learned Rent Controller against the landlord was reversed on issue pertaining to his bona fide need of the property presuming that it was decided by the learned Rent Controller in his favour. The judgment, therefore, suffers for non‑exercise of jurisdiction vested in the learned Additional District Judge.

7. It is noteworthy that after the amendment in the provisions o the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 ; finality is attached to the judgments/orders of the District/ Additional District Judge passed in appeals, the Presiding Officers are, therefore, under obligation to apply conscious mind to the legal questions raised before them, and decide the matters, in accordance with law.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 23rd June, 1982 is set aside and declared to be of no legal consequence. The case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, for fresh decision in accordance with law, within one month from the dot of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 26th September, 1983.

M .Y .H . Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.