The petitioner Mrs. Batool Zafar Ahmed is a widow and is owner of the premises No. 6-B 2nd Central Lane, Defence Society, Karachi, and she had entered into an agreement of rent with the respondent somewhere in the year 1973. 1 hereafter the petitioner filed a rent application before the Rent Controller Cantonment for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that she needed the premises for her personal bona fide use to house her daughter and children, and also on the ground of default in payment of rent. Preliminary issue was struck by the Rent Controller in respect of the question whether there existed any relationship that of landlord and tenant and the issue was decided in favour of the petitioner against which the respondent went in appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge on the consent of both the parties remanded the case to the Controller to decide all the issues together and to dispose of the matter finally. During the proceedings an interlocutory application was filed by the Advocate of the petitioner that there was a default committed by the respondent in respect of deposit of monthly rents. The Rent Controller wrote the order on this application on 3rd September, 1978 and signed it but transferred the matter to Additional Rent Controller for announcement of the order on 21st September, 1978 the date given to the parties. He in the mean time was transferred. The defence was struck of and the judgment was announced by the successor of the Rent Controller. Against this order again an appeal was filed before the District Judge who on 19th December, 1979 set aside the order of Rent Controller and the matter was remanded to the Rent Cont roller for deciding all the relevant issues and dispose of the matter which was very old. Against the order of the District Judge the present Constitutional Petition was filed. It was challenged that the District Judge erroneously interpreted the Order XX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. It was further challenged that the District Judge misread the evidence.
2. The learned Advocate of, the Petitioner was unable to cite any authority which dealt on the interpretation of Rules 1 and 2 of Order XX, C. P. C. The question precisely is whether Rule 2 of Order XX, C. P. C. Would be applicable in the present case when the judgment was written and signed by Rent Controller Cantonment but announced by the g Additional Rent Controller subsequently. The District Judge was of the opinion that Rule 2 of Order XX would not apply in the instant case and that he decided to remand the case to the Rent Controller. The learned Advocate of the Respondent referred to PLD 1964 SC 446. This authority does not favour the Advocate of the Petitioner.
3. While arguing. The matter both the counsel decided that it would be in their interest if the matter is referred to the Rent Controller to decide the issues as early as possible. The matter was old and they both made a joint prayer that this petition may be disposed of by remanding the matter to the Rent Controller Cantonment as it was remanded by the District Judge before filing of the present petition. Land lady Mrs. Batool Zafar Ahmed and respondent are personally present. I accordingly accept the prayer of the advocates and dismiss the present Constitutional Petition.
The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller Cantonment on 23rd February, 1982.
The Rent Controller shall complete the proceedings and dispose of the matter within three months.
In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.