' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 21-3-2003 the petitioner filed an application for ejectment of the respondent No,3 from a house located in Lahore urban area. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent at the rate of Rs,1200 per month since July, 2000, bona fide personal requirement and impairment to the value and utility of the building. The respondent No,3 was proceeded against ex parte. He filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, which was allowed on 10-5-2004. However, he failed to file a reply and also to pay costs and the defence was struck off. He filed yet another application for re-calling of older dated 8-6-2004, which was dismissed on 14-12-2004. Thereafter respondent No,4 filed an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Stating that she is the wife of respondent No,3. Her husband visited a Property Dealer, namely, Haji Asif and he told them that he remembered the petitioner had sold his house to them for 30,000 and they were told to contact a general attorney of the petitioner. It was then abruptly stated that sale-deed stands executed in her favour and Akram has nothing to do with the building in question. The application was contested but was allowed. An amended application was filed on 18-11-2006. In the reply filed by respondent No,4, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied and that the petitioner had sold the house to both the respondents 16/17 years ago. There is no reference to any particulars of any A document. Thereafter she filed an application for dismissing the application stating that the petitioner had admitted that he had sold the house to respondent No,3, the husband of respondent No,4 as he had not denied the fact in reply to the said application. The learned Rent Controller proceeded to dismiss the ejectment application vide order dated 23-7-2008. An appeal filed against the said order has been dismissed by a learned ADJ, Lahore, on 27-11-2008 holding it to be time barred.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are without lawful authority. The respondents have since been proceeded against ex parte. No one has turned up even today despite calls.
3. I have gone through the records. I have already detailed the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller above. I deem it appropriate to reproduce here the relevant para-4 of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 23-7-2008:--- "4. From the perusal of record iti reveals that registered sale in the name of respondent No,2 wife of respondent No,1 is on the file which reflects that petitioner is not owner of the property in. Question.
Moreover, no rent deed or any other proof for payment of rent is available on record. Since petitioner is not owner of the rented premises and he is not authorized person to file ejectment petition. Hence, instant ejectment petition is not proceedable. In these circumstances instant petition is accepted and ejectment petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room after its completion."
'It will be seen that without framing any issue and recording any evidence, the learned lent Controller has not only decided the matter of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but also a question of title.
' The order is wholly without lawful authority. Copy of this order was applied for on 31-7-2008 and was delivered to the petitioner on 7-11-2008. The appeal was filed on 26-11-2008. The learned ADJ proceeded to hold the appeal to be barred by time without holding any inquiry. The copy of the said sale-deed relied upon by the respondent No,4 is on the file. It is stated to be executed by one Pervaiz on 30-10-2004 i.e, long after the filing of the ejectment petition.
4. The writ petition accordingly is allowed. Both the impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and are set aside. The result would be that the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending. The petitioner shall put in appearance before the, learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Lahore, on 30-4-2009. The records will be requisitioned and after notice to the respondents Nos.3 and 4 the matter shall be decided in accordance with law after framing appropriate issues and recording evidence of the parties. No orders as to costs.
5. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Lahore.