Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeals Nos.767, 768, 769, 770 and 790 of 1984, decided on 14th April, 1987.

‑‑‑Ss.15 & 21‑‑Rent cases filed by landlord against tenants‑‑Evidence of attorney of landlord recorded in one case only and typed out and kept in other cases‑‑Similarly evidence of one tenant recorded in said case and his depositions copied out verbatim in other cases‑‑Value of evidence‑‑Where tenants had filed their separate written statements and also affidavits in evidence, but only deposition of one tenant who had appeared in one of the cases was copied out in other cases and on basis thereof all the rent cases were disposed of, such disposal of cases, held, was not in accordance with law‑‑Cases were remanded back to Rent Controller with direction to proceed with cases after providing opportunity to parties and deciding same according to merits and law.

P L D 1976 Lah. 1446; Hassan Gul v. The State 1975 P Cr. L J 437 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Crown P L D 1953 Lah. 321 ref.

Ismail Padhir for Appellant.

Hafeez‑ul‑Rehman Shaikh for Respondents.

Rent Cases Nos.487/76, 488/76, 489/76, 491/76 and 492/76 were filed by the landlord against the tenants on the ground of default in payment of rent. The XIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller by orders, dated 3rd May, 1984 decreed all the rent cases. Tenants filed separate appeals against the impugned orders. I propose to dispose of First Rent Appeals Nos. 767 768, 769, 770, and 790 of 1984 by this single order as points involved in all these appeals are identical.

Mr. Ismail Padhir, appearing for the appellant submitted that Rent Controller has not recorded the evidence of attorney of respondent in all the cases but he examined attorney Sirajuddin in Rent Case No.489 of 1976 only and typed out his evidence and kept in other case. It is also argued that in the same manner evidence of one Abdul Hamid tenant was recorded in that case and his depositions were copied out verbatim in other four cases. It is argued that this is violation of the principle of natural justice and the procedure. Reference has been made to a case reported in P L D 1976 Lah. 1446.

Mr. Hafeez‑ul‑Rehman Shaikh is appearing for all the respondents has frankly conceded and submitted that cases be remanded to the Rent Controller for recording the evidence in the proper manner.

I have perused the record of all the rent cases. The appellants who are tenants filed their separate written statements and also affidavits in evidence. Only Abdul Hamid appeared for the cross‑examination in the Case No. 489 of 1976 and his depositions were kept duly typed in other cases though no witnesses in other cases and relying his evidence in one case all the rent cases were disposed of. It is to be noted that in view of this situation other four tenants were not cross‑examined though on the reverse of their affidavits in evidence lengthy cross‑examination was typed but it was cross‑marked and not signed by the Rent Controller. From this, it is clear that their evidence has got no value.

In case of Hassan Gul v. The State reported in 1975 P Cr. L J 437 it has been held that where statements recorded in one case only and carbon copies of depositions were placed on record of other cases, the procedure adopted by the Court was illegal. In the case of Muhammad Younis v. Crown reported in P L D 1953 Lah. 321. It has been held that even the parties consented to that arrangement of keeping depositions of one case to be read in other cases. It is not in accordance with law. For the reasons stated above the cases are remanded back to the Rent Controller with the directions to proceed with the cases after providing an opportunity to the parties and to decide according to merits and law. The cases are very old. He should dispose of their rent cases within 3 months.

A.A./S‑22/K Cases 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.