1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners, tenants in property of which the respondent is the landlord, seak leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-12-1981 whereby the judgment of the appellate authority refusing ejectment of the petitioners, was set aside and the appellate authority has been asked to redecide the matter.
2. The respondent sought the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default and need far reconstruction of the property. The petitioners pleaded want of notice under section 30 Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act and under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. They denied the default and the need for reconstruction. The application for ejectment was filed in 1972. The Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered ejectment. The learned District Judge held that notices under section 30 and 13-A were not served; that there was no default; that there was no need for reconstruction and that the demand of excess rent was unjustified and showed mala fide of the landlord. He refused the ejectment. A constitutional petition was then filed challenging the decision and the same was allowed for the reason which appears from the following operative part of the judgment:- "I do refrain from discussing the impact of law as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the nature of order I am going to pass, except that these decisions do have a supporting impact on the contentions raised. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge as it stands, lacks the proper impact of the legal exposition on the basic issues. The interpretation of the law by the superior Courts and the principles set thereunder are meant to be observed and applied by the lower Courts. I find that the learned Additional District Judge has not felt the necessity of either asking the counsel before him to support their contentions with law as laid down by the superior Courts or to look himself into the decisions of the superior Courts covering the contentions which were raised before him. The judgment so delivered is not rich as to the discussion of law, as such, cannot be regarded as with that lawful authority which the Constitution of this country contemplates. The necessity has been felt for remarking all this because these days in rent restriction cases the contestants have been left with only one right of appeal, therefore, in consequence thereof the judgment dated 17-7-1980 of the appellate Court is set aside and the case is remanded for a decision afresh in the light of all the relevant decisions delivered by the superior Courts convering the points which are directly or indirectly in issue in the present case".
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that all Tribunals having limited and special jurisdiction have a duty to remain within their jurisdiction and to decide a question in- accordance with law. However, it is contended that it is no part of the legal jurisdictional requirement that the orders of he Rent Controller and the appellate authority should incorporate and deal with all the decisions of the superior Courts on the subject. Without pointing out jurisdictional or legal error in the judgment of the appellate authority the finality of that judgment could not be impaired and a duty cast on the appellate authority to deal in such an elaborate fashion with the question which already stood decided.
4. We find that there is some merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and we would like to ensure whether this interference by the High Court in the finality of the order of the appellate authority is in conformity with the authoritative pronouncement of this Court on the subject.
5. Security Rs. 1,000.
6. To be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file such additional documents as they consider necessary.