Through instant petition, petitioner has assailed vires of orders dated 04.02.2020 and 17.03.2020, passed by learned Special Judge (Rent) and Additional District Judge, Lahore, respectively , whereby ejectment petition filed by respondent No. 1 was accepted concurrently .
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed ejectment petition regard ing Shops No. 4 & 5, located in Ghulam Ali Medicine Market, Lohari Gate, Lahore, on the basis of Rent Agreement dated 01.03.2006. It was averred that respondent No. 1 visited the shops on 12.02.2019 and found that petitioner constructed bathroom and basement and secured an illegal water connection, thus, violated the terms and conditions of the rent agreement.
Petitioner tendered appearance and filed application for leave to contest along with reply to ejectment petition. After hearing arguments of both sides, learned Special Judge (Rent) dismissed application for leave to contest and accepted the ejectment petition, directing petitioner to vacate the shops in question within two months, vide order dated 04.02.2020. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before learned Addit ional District Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2020. Hence, instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that eviction petition has straightaway been accepted without dilating upon pleadings and questions of law and facts raised in the application for leave to contest. He adds that respondent No. 1 sought eviction only on the ground that petitioner allegedly violated terms and conditions of rent agreements but eviction order has been passed on the ground of expiry of lease agreement. He further submits that petitioner has paid huge amounts of Pagri but this aspect has not been taken into consideration while passing impugned decisions. In the end, he submits that impugned decisions are not sustainable in the eye of law .
4. Conversely , learned counsel for respondent No. 1 defends the impugned decisions. When confronted that ejectment petition has been allowed on a ground not agitated in averments, he submits that respondent No. 1 also prayed for any other relief, therefore, impugned decisions are within the scope of contents of ejectment petition.
5. Heard. Available record perused.
6. Perusal of averments of ejectment petition shows that sole ground urged by respondent No. 1 was illegal construction by petitioner in rented shops whereas eviction order has been passed on the ground of expiry of tenancy period. Respondent No. 1 has neither raised this ground in the ejectment petition nor sought permission to amend the ejectment petition. Moreover , learned Courts below have also not opted to confront this ground to petitioner in order to seek his defence. Purpose of pleadings is' to let the opposite-party know , what it has to meet.
Respondent No. 1 on the basis of facts averred in ejectment petition had to establish the cause of action and petitioner has to prove his defence. Moreover , a decision can neither be based upon the pleas not raised in the pleadings nor upon pleas raised but not proved. The Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and it had no jurisdiction to decide a case, which had not been put forward by any party in the pleadings. Reference can be made to Ehtezaz Asghar and another v. Ch. Muhammad Sajawal and 2 others (2012 YLR 1580 ) and Abdul Azizullah and others v . Anjuman Ansa Ashria and Heliyan-eNah Dagh (Regd.) and others (2000 MLD 2007 ).
7. Undeniably , petitioner in his application for leave to contest raised question s, inter-alia, that subsequently agreements dated 02.11.2006 were executed, whereby respondent No. 1 received Rs. 19,00,000/- for shop No. 4 and Rs. 23,00,000/- for shop No. 5 as Pagri, with settlement that respondent No. 1 would not get vacated the shops in question; that agreement dated 02.11.2006 clearly stated that shop No. 5 also carried basement and washroom; that petitioner was also authorized to alienate the shops in question, however , respondent No. 1 was entitled to get 25% of the amount received in excess of aforesaid Pagri amount; and that if petitioner intended to vacate the rented shops, respondent No. 1 was bound to pay agreed percentage of prevailing market good will to him.
8. Perusal of impugned decisions shows that some of the petitioner's contentions are though mentioned in impugned decisions but the same have not been properly addressed by learned fora below . Hence, impugned decisions are non-speaking within the contemplation of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Consequently , application petitioner's application for leave to contest is allowed and ejectment petition shall be decided afresh within a period of 06-months and if parties desire to amend their pleadings by adding fresh grounds, power to this extent shall be liberally exercised in accordance with law .