' Respondent No, 3 is the landlady of the tenant in question and the two appellants are the tenants.
Respondent No, 3 had moved the Summary Military Court, constituted under Martial Law Order No, 20 made by the Martial Law Administrator Zone "C", for the ejectment of the two appellants and one Abdul Ghani. A notice was given by the Summary Military Court constituted under M. L.O. 20 requiring the said three persons to appear in the Court on 19-12-1977, on which date the following decision was made by the Summary Military Court :- "DECISION ' Taking all these matters into consideration, I now order the defendants Mr. Abdul Ghani, Mr. Abdul Razzaq and Mr. Mohammad Manzar to hand over vacant possession of building No, 1/47 W.
0. Quarters, S. T. Saifuddin Road, Karachi to tile plaintiff Khadija Bai Wd/o Late Noor Mohammad by 31st January, 1978. For any wilful damage caused to the aforesaid premises before vacation, the tenant shall be liable to make good such damage/loss when proved."
2. Being aggrieved, the two appellants, namely, Mohammad Manzar and Abdul Razzaq filed a Constitution Petition under Article 199 of the 1973 Constitution, which petition was admitted to regular hearing and stay was granted on 17-1-1980. The Governor of Sind made an Ordinance (Sind Ordinance No, 1 of 1980) whereby it was inter alia provided that any order, judgment or decision passed by Military Court under MLO-20 shall be deemed to have been passed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Thereafter by order dated 17-3-1981 in the said Constitution Petition No, D-18/ 1978 by a Division Bench of this Court, the said petition was converted into a First Appeal in terms of section 2 of the said Military Courts Validation of Orders Ordinance No, 1 of 1980.
In view of the said order dated 17-3-1981, the Constitution Petition of the appellants was converted into the present First Rent Appeal No, 163 of 1981.
3. I have heard Mr. Mohammad Ali Jan, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Zahid Hussain Borhani, learned counsel for respondent No,
3. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that neither copy of the application submitted by respondent No, 3 to the Summary Military Court was provided to the appellants which deprived the appellants to defend the proceedings properly, nor the principles of natural justice were adhered to by the Summary Military Court. Mr. Zahid Hussain Borhani, learned counsel for respondent No, 3, however, contended that evidence was "orally recorded" by the Summary Military Court and the decision was given on merits after considering the entire evidence. He frankly, however, admitted that no record is available to show that any such evidence was in fact recorded. According to learned counsel, the words "Taking all these matters into consideration" in the order dated 19-12-1977 of the Summary Military Court are sufficient to establish that principles of natural justice had not been violated. In the absence of the record and any other material, just from the words "Taking all these matters into consideration", which words are cyclostyled, it cannot be said that an adequate opportunity had been granted to the appellants. In my view, it has not been established that a proper opportunity was granted to the appellants to defend the proceedings and the impugned order is also contrary to principles of natural justice.
4. Mr. Zahid Hussain Borhani, learned counsel for the respondent No, 3 relied upon a judgment of Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, J. In the case of Inam Ahmed v. Noor-un-Nisa Mirza. In that case the Summary Military Court had passed a detailed order giving not only reasons for the order of ejectment but the evidence produced by the parties before the Summar Military Court was also considered. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, J. In his judgment, held that under the provisions of MLO-20, the Summary Militar Court before passing the order of ejectment was required to inquire into the case by issuing notices to the parties concerned for appearance before it and after examining such oral or documentary evidence in support of the application or in defence as was, considered necessary to decide the case. It was further held by the learned Single Judge, however, that the proceedings by the Summary Military Court under MLO-20 should conform to the principles of natural justice and parties should have reasonable opportunity to defend their case. In the case before the learned Single Judge, it was established that notices were given, parties were heard and evidence was recorded by the Summary Military Court and, as observed earlier, the order of ejectment passed by the Summary Military Court not only referred to and considered and evidence adduced by the parties but also gave reasons. The facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. I a in agreement with the views expressed by Saeed-uz-Zaman, J. On MLO-20 I PLD 1982 Kar.
763. The principles laid down in that case instead of supporting the case of the respondent No, 3 go against her.
' In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 19-12-1977 of the Summary Military Court under MLO-20 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Rent Controller having jurisdiction in the matter for decision on merits under the law. The first date of hearing is fixed before the Rent Controller as 16-10-1982 which has been noted on behalf of the appellants and respondent No, 3 by learned counsel, who have appeared before me today. No notice of this hearing will be issued by the Rent Controller and the parties will appear themselves or through their Advocates on 16-10- 1982 before the Rent Controller, on which date the appellants will file their written statements. Copy of the Rent Application will be supplied by Mr. Zahid Hussain Borhani to Mr. Mohammad Ali Jan, Advocate within one week from today. The Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the Rent Case on or before 31-12-1982. In case written-statement is not filed by the appellants on 16-10-1982, the Rent Controller will proceed ex parte against the appellants.1 ' Office of this Court is directed to ascertain the jurisdiction of the concerned Rent Controller and then send the papers including a copy of this judgment to the Rent Controller. This should be done within 15 days from today. There will be no order as to costs. PLD 1982 Kar. 763