' This civil revision assails judgments and decrees dated 21-2-1995 and 7-6-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat whereby suit filed by the respondent was decreed and appeal of the petitioner there against was dismissed, respectively.
2. Precisely, relevant facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for possession of shop constructed in Khasra No.1330 of village Dolat Nagar, Tehsil and District Gujrat on the ground that it was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.300 but the petitioner failed to pay the rent of the shop since October, 1992. Decree for possession of the shop was prayed on two fold grounds, firstly default in payment of monthly rent and secondly that the shop was needed by the respondent for personal use. The petitioner inspite of demand by the respondent did not .Vacate the shop, necessitated filing of above referred suit.
3. The petitioner being defendant in the suit contested it, denying relationship of landlord and tenant. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned Civil Judge who was seized of the matter, after doing, the needful, vide his judgment and decree dated 21-2-1995 decreed the suit against the petitioner directing him to vacate the shop within three months and to pay an amount of Rs.8,400 as arrears of rent.
4. The petitioner aggriqved of the decision of the trial Court dated 21-2-1995 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed on 7- 6-2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed instant revision petition which was admitted to regular hearing and has now been placed for final determination. The respondent was personally served but did not appear to contest this revision petition, hence, he is proceeded against ex parte.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court while, deciding appeal erred in deciding the matter taking it under the provisions of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, .1959 and thus, the judgment returned is not sustainable. He further contended that besides the tenor of the appellate judgment, its opening, 11 and 20 paragraphs clearly show that the Appellate Court was not aware of the fact that the respondent had filed a suit for possession on the basis of tenancy and not an ejectment petition under section 13 of the Ordinance, 1959. According to his submissions, consideration for a decision on a petition under section 13 of the Ordinance, are altogether different, to those needed for giving decision in a suit. He further referred to Jamabandi in the year 1987-88 (Exh.P.1) to show that the petitioner was owner of the land in dispute and as such, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but a contrary view expressed by the two Courts below is not consonance with the evidence on the file.
6. I have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for: I the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undeniably, the opening paragraph of the appellate judgment reveals that the learned Additional District Judge was under the impression that the respondent filed an ejectment petition under section 13 of the Ordinance (ibid) and in the appeal order dated 21-2-1995 was impugned whereas it was an appeal' against the judgment and decree in a suit for possession. Similarly, while giving findings on Issue No.1 in paragraph 11, the Appellate Court refrained from entering' into controversy of title of property, under the impression that he was trying ejectment petition under Rent Restriction Ordinance. He in concluding lines of paragraph 11 remarked that such question of ownership can only be determined by the Civil Court. Alike observations were made in paragraph 20 of the judgment wherein he remarked "dismissed the application of the respondent for ejectment". The Appellate Court appears to be absolutely ignorant of the fact that appeal before him arose out of suit for possession wherein it had to decide the title of the property, as well, on the basis of evidence produced by the parties.
7. Since the Appellate Court decided the appeal of the petitioner on an incorrect assumption of facts, with regard to nature of proceedings, I intentionally avoided to dilate upon contentions of the petitioner touching ownership/title of the property in dispute as I intend to remand the case to the Appellate Court for fresh decision, lest the mind of the Appellate Court may not be prejudiced by observations by this Court.
8. For the reasons noted above, appellatLudgment dated 7-6-2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is not sustainable at law, being tainted with illegalities or -irregularities envisaged by section 115, C.P.C. Thus, the same is set aside. This civil revision is allowed with the result that the appeal of the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge shall be deemed to be pending and shall be decided in accordance with law, afresh. Since the respondent did not appear before this Court, the appeal shall be decided,after notice to the respondent. There will be no order as to costs.