' Briefly stated the facts leading upto the filing of this petition, are that on 8th June, 1970 Dr. Abdul Majid, respondent, filed an ejectment application seeking eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute on the ground that he requires the shop for bona fide personal need as he after his retirement in September, 1970, intends to settle in Lahore and to start his own practice in the said shop as well as the two other adjoining shops. It was further asserted that he being an Eye Specialist intends to establish a fairly large clinic and that separate applications for eviction of the tenants from the two adjoining shops were also being moved. The petitioner resisted this application by filing a reply in which various objections and pleas were taken. The petitioner denied the execution of the rent-note as it was pleaded that the signatures of the petitioner were obtained on non-judicial stamp paper as well as on other blank papers and that at the time of institution of the ejectment application those papers were converted into rent note. Moreover the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was denied on a very novel plea, and the same reads as under :- "That the Sammanabad Scheme was introduced in respect of the lands owned by the evacuees and others. The lands owned by the evacuees were brought into the Scheme unauthorizedly and illegally without the permission of the Custodian, Evacuee Properties and the Central Government of Pakistan. Therefore, the plot in question and the construction thereon is evacuee property. .1n any case, the evacuees had valuable interest in the plot in question and the construction thereon and, therefore, this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction."
' However, on my specific enquiry from the learned counsel it was conceder' that the petitioner was inducted into the shop by the respondent and that he has been paying rent to the respondent.
2. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed necessary issues and ultimately vide order dated 29th May, 1973 ordered eviction of the petitioner. This order was challenged by filing an appeal and during the pendency of this appeal, various applications were filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. These applications, according to the petitioner, were not disposed of. A grievance has been, made in .Particular with reference to the 'following applications :-
(i) Application dated 18th April, 1974 seeking permission to produce additional evidence in order to prove that the respondent had raised huge construction consisting or many rooms over the existing structure of the building in which the shop was situated so as to show that the' respondent no more required the portion of the property in possession of the petitioner for his bona fide requirement.
(ii) Application under Order XLI, rule 33, C. P. C. Dated 24th April, 1974 seeking permission to amend reply to the ejectment application. (A similar request made before the Rent Controller was ejected vide order dated 24th November, 1972, but the said order was not challenged in the appeal filed against the final order of ejectment dated 29th May, 1973 of the Rent Controller).
(iii) Application under Order XVIII, rule 18, C. P. C. Dated 7th November, 1974 praying that the Court may inspect the spot or appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect the spot and to prepare a plan to clearly mark portion which has been constructed: recently, the two adjacent shops which have been got vacated yesterday and the shop in dispute.
(iv) Application dated 25th February, 1978 for permission to produce certain documents to prove that rent of a shop in the building owned by the respondent was increased from Rs, 70 to Rs, 100 and later there was a further increase in the rent. This was sought to be proved to show that the real intention of the respondent was to enhance the rent.
' The case of the petitioner is that without deciding the aforesaid applications, the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to decide the main appeal and dismissed the same vide judgment dated 18th October, 1979. An appeal (S.A.O. No, 687/79) was brought to this Court but the same was dismissed as having abated in view of the provisions of Ordinance II of 1980. Thereafter.
The petitioner filed the present constitution petition to assail the order of eviction dated 29th May, 1973 passed by the Rent Controller and order dated 18th October, 1979 of the learned Additional District Judge whereby the order of the Rent Controller was maintained in appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority acted illegally in dismissing the appeal without deciding the afore noted applications. It was asserted that had these applications been heard and decided, the appeal of the petitioner would have