' This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-4-1980 passed by the Rent Controller, Hyderabad in Rent Case No, 389/78.
' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent filed an application under section 10 of the late West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance alleging therein, that the present appellant disconnected the supply of electricity on 26-6-1978 in respect of tenement in her possession of which she was a tenant at Rs, 100 per month for the last two years at the time of filing of the application in 1978. The above application was resisted by the present appellant and it was alleged that the appellant had never supplied any electricity to the respondent and, therefore, the question of disconnecting the said supply did not arise. The learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence and after inspecting the site concluded in the order under appeal that the respondent had failed to prove that she was supplied with the electricity by the appellant. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller decided the Issues Nos. 2 and 3 relating to the supply of electricity against the respondent. However, in his concluding portion of the order the learned Rent Controller has observe as follows :- "Since the applicant has failed to prove that there was electricity facility when house was let out to her, and that same is disconnected b opponent, without any just cause, as such no direction could be give to opponent to restore the same. During arguments it was stated a Bar that in case no direction could be given to opponent for restoration of the electricity, then applicant be permitted to have electric meter a her own cost and she will not claim the expenditure incurred on getting the electricity connection for opponent or some body else, of courts Ghulam Rasool in his statement has stated that he will have objection if applicant get electricity at her own cost.
' To my mind he should not have such objection, specially when expense are being borne by applicant and same will not be claimed for him or some body else. During these hot days, it has practically become difficult to put on without electricity. Under these circumstances I find that applicant may have separate meter and electric connection, bu it is being made clear to her, that she will not be entitled to charge o claim anything from opponent or his brother and she will be supplied and pay the electric charges regularly."
' The appellant, being aggrieved by the above concluding para. Filed the dresent appeal.
2. Mr. Syed Madad Ali Shah, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned Rent Controller has acted beyond the scope of section 10 o the late West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance or section 11 o the present Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, inasmuch as the directio of the nature in question could not have been given. Whereas Mr. Al Ali Hakro, learned counsel for the respondent has not submitted that sue direction could have been given under the above provision of law. Howeve he has submitted that this Court is competent, while hearing the above appeal, to reverse the finding of the Rent Controller on Issues Nos. 2 and though the respondent has not filed any appeal or cross-objections and t hold that in fact the appellant was supplying electricity to the responden and to issue the necessary direction against the appellant in terms of section 1 of the late Ordinance or section 11 of the present Ordinance. In support of h' above contention, he has referred to the case of Samlullah v. Mian Muhammad Salim, District Judge, Rawalpindi (1), wherein it was held by a learned Sing Judge that the High Court, while hearing a second appeal could maintai in the order under appeal on a ground other than which found favour wit' the Courts below. There cannot be any cavil to the above proposition of law, but in my view the facts of the present case are distinguishable in much as the impugned portion of the order cannot be supported by an other ground as well. If I were to hold that Issues Nos. 2 and 3 we wrongly decided and that the respondent's application should have bee granted, it would amount to allowing of an appeal of the respondent thong not filed. Furthermore, the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence on the record has come to the conclusion that in fact the appellant had never supplied the electricity to the respondent as was alleged in the application. The above finding could have been arrived at on the basis o the evidence of the respondent's witnesses namely, Ghulam Rasul and Iqbal Hussain, whereas the respondent had examined herself only and in the cross examination she made some conflicting statements. In this view of the {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1966 Lab. 572 {{FOOT NOTE}} matter the order under appeal cannot be sustained and, therefore, I allow the' appeal and set aside the order with no order as to costs.
3. But before parting with the above discussion I may point out that the attitude of the landlady is very unreasonable as she does not wish that her tenant may obtain electricity connection directly from the WAPDA at her own cost on the condition that she would not claim any cost from her t the time of vacation of the premises. Since I do not have the power to maintain the order under appeal I have allowed the appeal, but the above attitude of the landlady is to be deprecated.