' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner/landlord 'Muhammad Aslam filed an ejectment petition against Qurban Ali, respondent/tenant. The respondent submitted a reply to 'the petition denying therein the relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Rent Controller framed , as many as seven issues, including that of relief. Issue No,1 is relevant for purpose of the present petition. This issue was framed as under:-- "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPP
2. Thereafter, the ejectment matter was fixed for evidence. The petitioner himself appeared as A.W.1 but was not cross-examined. Subsequently, at the request of learned counsel for the respondent, the case was adjourned for cross-examination of the petitioner, subject to payment of Rs,100 as costs. On the date fixed for his cross-examination, the respondent, once again, sought an adjournment. The learned Rent Controller, however, made a query to which the respondent replied by admitting that he was the tenant of the petitioner, but he had spent a sum of Rs,1,50,000 on the development of the disputed shop and was not liable to vacate the same unless this amount was paid to him. In this view of the matter, the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 17-9-2005, allowed the ejectment petition and ordered the ejectment of the respondent/tenant.
3. The respondent filed an appeal, which has been allowed by the learned appellate Court vide order dated 23-11-2005. The learned Court has set aside the ejectment order dated 17-9-2005 and has remanded the case for decision afresh after recording of evidence.
4. The reason, which has prevailed with the learned appellate Court, is that the utterance made by the respondent in the Court of the learned Rent Controller, was not evidence and, therefore, could not be made the basis for passing the ejectment order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasoning of the learned appellate. Court is not legally sustainable. It was argued that in the light of the admission of the respondent, duly recorded in the ejectment order dated 17-9-2005, there was no necessity for evidence in respect of Issue No, 1.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent Qurban Ali has not been able to controvert the above submission. It is clear that when an admission is made in the presence of the Court, the Court is obliged to take notice of the same and if such admission is of such a nature that it suffices for the purpose of resolving the controversy, the Court must proceed to decide the matter without delay.
In the present case, as noted above, Issue No,1, was framed to determine whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The admission of the respondent recorded in the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 17-9-2005 was by itself sufficient to demolish the defence set up by the respondent.
6. The learned appellate Court committed error in law by setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller which was based on an admission of the respondent made in Court. The learned appellate Court also observed that the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order had not been adhered to by the learned Rent Controller. This observation is not tenable. An admission is valid evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The admission made by the respondent in the present case was correctly relied upon by the learned Rent Controller while allowing the ejectment petition.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that in his reply he had asserted that he was a tenant under Liaqauat Ali, who was the brother of the petitioner Muhammad Aslam. This assertion was made on the basis of some agreement allegedly executed in favour of the respondent by the said Liaquat Ali. Upon being questioned learned counsel for the respondent stated that Liaquat Ali had joint title in the disputed property along with the petitioner vide decree dated 8-4-1994. This also establishes the case of the petitioner that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the two brothers had partitioned the disputed property. There is, however, nothing on record to establish such partition.
8. In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the learned appellate Court committed error in law by setting aside the ejectment order dated 17-9-2005. In this view of the matter, the appellate order dated 23-11-2005 being contrary to law is set aside. As a result, the ejectment order dated 17-9- 2005 stands restored.