' This judgment will dispose of S.A.Os. Nos.3 and 4 of 1980 as they both raise common questions of law and fact.
2. The respondent is the landlord and had filed two petitions for the eviction of his tenants in two shops situate in Jandher Bazar, Sialkot City. One shop was in occupation of Jan Muhammad which is the subject-matter of S.A.O.No,3 of 1980 and the other in possession of one Muhammad Yusuf concerning S.A.O.No, 4 of 1980. Both these applications proceeded on the ground of personal need.
The respondent had stated that he required the shop in question for his personal need in both these petitions. The petitions for eviction were filed on the same date but the same did not mention of the proceedings against the other tenant on the personal ground and it was never the case 'of the respondent that he required two shops for his personal need. The second ground taken was that the original tenants had sublet their premises to their respective brothers. But these petitions for eviction were contested. Both the original tenants denied the bona fide personal need and set up a case of joint tenancy with their respective brothers. The learned Rent Controller, Sialkot by an order passed on the same date i,e, 20th March,1979 ordered the eviction of the tenants on the basis of the personal need and subletting. The tenants in occupation of the shops filed two appeals which were also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sialkot vide his order, dated 25th October, 1979.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it had been specifically pointed out by the tenants that two applications having been filed simultaneously the question whether the appellant could get two shops vacated had not been considered by the learned Appellate Authority. It was further submitted that the evidence led by the appellant had not at all been adverted to by the learned District Judge. It was next contended that the reasons for rejecting the evidence of the appellant by the learned Rent Controller were equally applicable to the witnesses produced by the respondents and that the material evidence on record has been ignored.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has much force. I have gone through the statement of Muhammad Sarwar respondent (A.W.4) in both the petitions. He has not stated anywhere that he required two shops for his personal use and occupation and a ground to that effect had been taken in the memorandum of appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that from the evidence it was clear that the respondent required two shops and relied on a judgment reported as Mushtaq Ahmad v. Mrs.Mumtaz Zohra Rizvi (PLD 1978 Kar.
188). It is also correct that the evidence produced by the appellant being Muhammad Yunus (R.W.I) and Abdul Latif (R.W.2) have not at all been adverted to. If we advert to the order of the learned Rent Controller it seems that the statements of P.Ws. Termed as interested witnesses on account of their' being relations and"friends. The learned counsel for the appellant has read over the statements of A.Ws. And to some extent the same could he said about the statement of the wtinesses of the respondent. After going through the orders of the Rent Controller and the District Judge and the evidence on record I feel that the learned District Judge has ignored altogether the evidence produced by the appellant and has also not adverted to the evidence produced by the respondent in its true perspective. The question whether the respondent could get two shops vacated has also been not considered.
5. In view of the above discussion, I find this to Le a fit case for remand. The order of the learned District Judge, dated 25th October, 1979 is hereby set aside and he is directed to write a fresh order after considering the entire evidence on record and the other relevant factors. However, in view of the circumstances of-the rase there will be no order as to costs.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Sialkot on 28th April,1980.
The learned District Judge shall, however, fix the case in accordance to his own convenience for argument.