' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 21-1- 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur whereby he dismissed the order dated 18-6-2005 passed by learned Rent Controller, Bahawalpur.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for the eviction of Akhtar Hussain original respondent/tenant from the nonresidential building Chobaras Nos.6 and 9 situated in Jamil Market Circular Road, Bahawalpur.
This eviction petition was filed on 1-9-2003. The respondent appeared and filed reply to the petition wherein he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He submitted that the original owner of Chobara No,9 is Jamil son of Shahid Jamil whereas with regard to Chobara No, 6 he pleaded that Aasim Akhtar his son is in possession of that Chobara. The learned trial Court on 28-1-2004 framed issue with regard to the relationship between the parties and directed the parties to produce evidence. In her evidence the appellant submitted affidavits of her own as Exh.P1. Mst. Sabia Nazir as Exh.P2 and Muhammad Aslam as Exh.P3. They appeared in the witness box and were cross- examined as AW-1 to AW-3 respectively. Appellant also produced in her documentary evidence envelopes of post allegedly sent by respondent in the name of appellant as Exh.P2/1, Exh.PA/1 and a letter Exh.P2. She also produced Newspaper Roznama Rahbar as Exh.P3 copies of PT-I Form Exh.P3 and Exh.P4. On the other hand respondent also submitted his affidavit as Exh.R1 and appeared in the witness box and faced cross-examination as RW-1. He also produced Rashid Aziz as RW-2. In documentary evidence he produced copy of register PTA Exh.R1 and Exh.R2. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 18-6-2005 accepted' the petition and directed the respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the petitioner within one month.
Aggrieved by that eviction order respondent Akhtar Hussain filed an appeal before the learned District Judge Bahawalpur which was finally heard and decided on 21-1-2006. This judgment has been challenged in this second appeal before the court.
3. The name of learned counsel for the respondent was reflected in the cause list but today neither the learned counsel nor the respondent himself appeared in this court today. It being rent matter and this appeal related to the year 2006, there is no option except to hear this appeal ex parte. Ex parte proceedings are initiated against the respondent. With the able assistance of learned counsel for the appellant, I am going to decide this appeal ex parte.
4. Learned First Appellate Court mainly based his findings on the point that appellant in the eviction petition captioned "Shamshad Begum v. Akhtar Hussain Anjum" was not recorded owner of the premises in dispute. I am afraid that there was no question of ownership 9r otherwise before the First Appellate Court. Question in issue was whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Even otherwise the documents produced by the appellant Exh.P1 and Exh.P2 which are the letters addressed to the appellant by the respondent in which there is clear-cut admission of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned counsel .For the appellant relying upon Abdullah and 3 others v. Abdul Karim and others (PLD 1968 SC 140), and Malik Din and another v. Muhammad Aslam (PLD 1969 SC 136) argued that when the document is admitted in evidence without any objection other party cannot take objection afterwards and that document will be used against the other party. Even otherwise in the written statement as well as reply in the court it was the case of respondent that brother of Shamshad Begum and other sisters of Shamshad Begum are the owners of rented premises. If it be admitted as true even then the eviction petition filed by the appellant was competent as she was consistently receiving the rent from the respondent. Even in the pleadings of respondent there is evasive denial of the assertions made in the eviction petition. Respondent has not claimed ownership. The respondent pleaded that his son is in possession of one Chobara but Exh.P3 the News Paper which is published by respondent and the name of the respondent is visible as Chief Editor of Roznama Rahbar. In the cross-examination respondent has admitted that he along with his son is publishing the said newspaper and it is correct that his name is printed as Chief Editor even till today. The learned First Appellate Court has not rebutted the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional District Judge has travelled beyond its jurisdiction while going into matter of ownership of the property. During the pendency of appeal the original respondent died and his legal heirs were impleaded as party in which his said son for which the original respondent took the plea that his son is in possession of the rented premises also became party.
5. In the light of what has been discussed above, this appeal is accepted. Resultantly, judgment dated 21-1-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Bahawalpur is hereby set aside and that of learned Rent Controller dated 18-6-2005 is restored. The respondent is directed to hand over the vacant possession of rented premises to the appellant within a period of one month.
Second .