' This appeal calls in question an order dated 5-5-1977 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondents filed a petition in the Court of the Rent Controller, Lahore for the ejectment of the appellant from a portion of property No, SE-40-R-71/SE 111-31-S-2 & 4, situate in Rahim St., Fleming Road, Lahore, on the grounds of default in the payment of rent, damage to the property and requirement thereof for personal use and occupation by the landlord.
3. This petition was resisted by the appellant-tenant who, inter alia, pleaded that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the ; On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller, parties, Lahore seized of the matter framed three issues. Issue No, 1 was to the following effect : "Whether the relationship of landlord' and tenant exists between the parties? 0. P. A."
' The learned Rent Controller decided issue No, 1 aforementioned in favour of the respondents and the other two issues onus of which was placed on the appellant were decided against him. As a result of his findings the petition for ejectment was accepted by order dated 24-7-1975. The appellant was also burdened with costs but be was allowed one month's time to hand over the possession to the respondents' landlord.
4. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Rent Controller dated 24-7-1975, the appellant preferred an appeal to the learned Additional District Judge, who by his judgment dated 5-5-1977 accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Rent Controller and remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller to hold further enquiry and to decide the petition afresh after allowing sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Hence this second appeal.
5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that since it was on the application of the appellant for additional evidence that the case was remanded to the learned Rent Controller, the learned Lower Appellate Court should have confined the scope of enquiry by the learned Rent Controller to the production of the Handwriting Expert by the appellant alone.
6. I am not impressed by the contention raised by the learned counsel. If an opportunity is given to a party to bring on record certain matter subsequent to the closing of the case, the opposite-party has necessarily to be given the opportunity of leading evidence of whatever nature it wants to produce to rebut the evidence of the party who has been afforded an opportunity. The grievance made Out by the learned counsel for the appellant is wholly misconceived in that acceptance of his contention would mean the denying of opportunity to the other party to rebut what has been brought on record after the close of the case. Allowing such a prayer would tantamount to giving premium to one's own neglect. The scope of section 15(3) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is very wide and empowers the Appellate Authority to itself make further enquiry as it thinks fit or to have further enquiry made through the Controller. The impugned order has apparently been passed with jurisdiction and neither any illegality nor irregularity has been brought out as having been committed while passing the impugned order.
7. In view of the foregoing, I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs.