' This first appeal is by the landlords and is directed against order, dated 3-4-1985 of Rent Controller, Cantonment. Facts are: Saleha Akhtar and others brought an application under section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 for eviction of respondents from the shop in dispute on the grounds of personal requirements as also its subletting. Application was resisted. In the written statement, apart from the denial of the claim on merits, some preliminary objections were also raised by the respondent. Defence as also the pleas taken in support of ejectment petition are reflected in issues framed by the Rent Controller. After the issues were settled, some evidence was also led. When the rent case was postponed for respondent's evidence, it appears from the record that Salah-ud-Din, respondent No,1 recorded his statement on 11-2-1985 and stated that if the appellants were to allow him time till 31-12-1986 as given in agreement, he shall vacate and hand over possession of the shop to the appellants on 1-1-1987. It was further agreed by him that the rent for the period intervening shall be paid by him at the rate of Rs,300 per month. Offer of Salah-ud- Din was accepted by the appellants on the same day. Strangely, Rent Controller after recording the proceedings in which Salah-ud-Din had agreed to vacate the premises by a particular date, dismissed ejectment petition on 11-2-1985. Appellants applied for review and prayed that in the result of terms settled ejectment petition may be decreed. Review petition was also dismissed on 3-4-1985. Against the orders of Rent Controller, firstly dismissing the ejectment petition and secondly refusing to review, appellants preferred this appeal. Appeal was admitted on 17-4-1985 and has been placed before me today for final hearing.
2. On behalf of the appellants Mr. M. Bilal, Advocate argued that Rent Controller in terms of the settlement agreed to by Salah-ud-Din, was obliged to decree the ejectment and could not record dismissal order. Salah-ud-Din, respondent who appeared in person, urged that the dismissal order on the facts and circumstances was justified. After examining the record and hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that this appeal is bound to succeed and the orders passed by Rent Controller cannot be sustained. In my opinion, when a tenant himself offered t vacate the premises by a particular date and this offer was accepted by the opposite side. Rent Controller was obliged to proceed further in accordance with the settlement reached between the parties. He could not have recorded dismissal order. Failure to rectify the mistake, when moved was not a proper exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, appeal is allowed, impugned order dated 11-2-1985 as also that dated 3- 4-1985 are set aside. Result is that the rent case goes back to the Rent Controller to proceed further in accordance with the terms settled between the parties and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I direct that parties should bear their own costs. Records be returned to the Rent Controller, Cantonment where parties have been directed to appear on 15-5-1986. Learned Rent Controller is also directed to expedite the hearing.