' This civil revision is directed against an order of an Additional District Judge who, while acting as an appellate authority, recorded the statement of the husband of the respondent-landlady, Mst.
Dilshad Begum as additional evidence in an appeal filed against her by the petitioner, Muhammad Ashiq. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner to call in question an order of ejectment passed against him on the ground of personal need of the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statement of the husband of the respondent was recorded by the learned Additional District Judge suo motet and not on an application of the respondent. The argument proceeds that her husband was neither a party to the ejectment proceedings nor he was an attorney of the respondent and, therefore, he had no locus standi to make an application. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the application made by the respondent's husband which shows that he had filed the application in obedience to the order of the learned Additional District Judge. Even if there was no such order, it was not necessary that there should be an application by a party to enable the learned appellate authority to record additional evidence. According to subsection (3) of section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the appellate authority is required' to "decide the appeal after sending for the record of the case from the A Controller, and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard) and, if necessary, after making such further enquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller". It seems that in the present case the learned Additional District Judge had himself considered it necessary to make further enquiry in terms of the provisions of subsection (3) of section 15 which he could do even if there was no application by any of the parties to the appeal requesting him to hold such inquiry. After recording the statement of the husband of the respondent, the learned Additional District Judge permitted the petitioner to produce such documents and other evidence in rebuttal thereof as he thought fit. Thus, he took case of the interest of the petitioner also while making further inquiry in the case. In this view of the matter, the order impugned herein is not open to any valid exception.
3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. in limine.