This judgement shall decided FAO No, 124/05 and FAO No, 125/05 as common questions are involved.
2. On 29.5.2004 the respondent filed ejectment petitions against the appellants in these two cases.
The ejectment was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation The applications were resisted by the appellants by filing written replies. Fallowing issues were framed in both the cases:--
1. Whether the property is personally bona fide required to the petitioners for their use and occupation? OPP
2. Relief.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide orders dated 30.5.2005 the ejectment petitions were allowed and the appellants were directed to vacate the premises within three months.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the statement made by PW-1 could not be considered as there is no evidence on record that he was a validly appointed attorney of the respondent. Further contends that the evidence led by the appellants to demonstrate the mala fides of the respondent has not at all been considered by the learned Rent Controller and the impugned orders are rather nonspeaking. Learned counsel for the respondent insists that the PW- 1 in both these cases was a validly appointed attorney and such a power of attorney can be produced and proved According to him, the impugned orders have been passed lawfully and need not be interfered with in these first appeals.
4. I have gone through the records of the learned Rent Controller in both these cases. Muhammad Ashraf son of Muhammad Ramzan appeared as a sole witness for the respondent and his examination-in-chief is in the form of affidavits (Ex. P1)) in both the cases. In the matter of FAO No, 124/05 he was cross-examined on 7 3.2005 while in the matter of FAO No, 125/05 he was cross- examined on 3.3 2005 In reply to the very first question in cross-examination in both the cases, he admitted that neither the original nor a copy of any power-of-attorney has been produced by him.
On the next date of hearing in both these cases, learned counsel for the respondent produced some documents which were marked. However, the original or a copy of the power-of-attorney was not produced. To my mind, the learned counsel has very correctly raised the objection that there is no evidence on record to show that the said Muhammad Ashraf was a lawfully appointed attorney of the respondent. No doubt a landlord need not appear in person and can make a statement through an attorney but such a power of-attorney has to be produced and then to be proved. I am, however, inclined to grant the request of the learned counsel for the respondent that an opportunity be given to produce and prove power of attorney as according to him such a power-of-attorney is available although not present on record.
5. I also find the impugned orders to be rather non-speaking and having been passed without considering the entire evidence on record including copies of judicial proceedings produced by the appellants in support of their respective pleas. Both the FAOs are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the learned Rent. Controller on 30.5.2005 are set aside. The result would be that the ejectment petition shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Rent Controller The parties shall appear on 27.6.2007 in his Court. The records alongwith a copy of this judgment will be immediately remitted back to the learned Rent Controller by the office. He shall give an opportunity to the respondent to produce and prove the power-of attorney being referred .to by the respondent with a chance to the appellant to rebut the said evidence. Thereafter, the matters shall be decided after considering the entire evidence on record. The needful to be done within four months of the said date. No orders as to costs.