' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---These are two appeals by special leave from the judgment, dated 28th May, 1979 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The appellants in the two appeals are the heirs of one Dil Muhammad and their interest in the matter before us is the same but they have elected to approach this Court separately because they belong to separate branches of the same family.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to a plot of land, measuring 4 Kanals and 16 Marlas and situate on Katchery Road, Sialkot City. This plot was formerly owned by one Mubarik Din. By a registered deed, dated 1st July, 1926, he leased it to one Muammad Amin for a period of 50 years at an annual rent of Rs,100. One of the terms of the lease provided that in the event that the owner intended to sell the plot after the expiry of 30 years of the lease period, the lessee would have the first right to purchase it at the market price reduced by one anna per rupee. Subsequently, Muhammad Amin assigned his rights in the lease to Dil Muhammad. In 1958, successors-in-interest of Mubarik Din who had in the meanwhile died, entered into an agreement with Chaudhry Nawab Din, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 7, for sale of the plot. In accordance with the terms of the lease deed, a notice was sent to Dil Muhammad asking him to purchase the plot. In the notice, the price of the land was stated to be Rs,63,000. Dil Muhammad sent a reply to the notice in which he inter alia disputed the price mentioned in the notice and averred that the market value of the plot was only Rs,6,000 per Kanal. He also stated that he had constructed a mosque on a part of the plot at a cost of Rs,6,000 and had spent Rs,9,000 in defending the title of Mubarik Din and that in accordance with the understanding given to him by Mubarik Din, he was entitled to the deduction of the said amounts from the price. Treating this reply as refusal to purchase, the successorsin-interest of Mubarik Din by a deed dated 22-4-1959, sold the plot to Ch. Nawab Din. After the purchase Ch. Nawab Din filed two successive applications before the Rent Controller for the eviction of Dil Muhammad. These applications remained unsuccessful.
Thereupon, he filed a suit for possession against Dil Muhammad.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed two preliminary issues; namely:-
(1) Whether the Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit?
(2) Whether the suit was competent in its present form?
' In support of their respective contentions, Ch. Nawab Din and Dil Muhammad appeared as witnesses. The trial Court held that it had the jurisdiction to try the suit but that it was not maintainable in the form in which it had been brought. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit.
4. Ch. Nawab Din filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge at Sialkot. The learned Additional District Judge decided both the issues in favour of Ch. Nawab Din. He then went on to hold that as Dil Muhammad had denied that he was a tenant under Ch.Nawab Din in the proceedings before the Rent Controller, his tenancy rights stood forfeited and he had become a trespasser. On the basis of this finding, he accepted the appeal and decreed the suit.
5. From the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge the appellants filed an appeal before the High Court. In the High Court, apart from challenging the finding of the subordinate Courts on the preliminary issues, the contention of Dil Muhammad was that the learned Additional District Judge could not have straightaway decreed the suit on merits after reversing the decision of the trial Court on a preliminary issue and that he should have remanded the case for decision on merits to settle the other controversies arising between the parties after a proper trial.
6. In the High Court the appeal was heard by a learned Single Judge. He affirmed the finding of the Additional District Judge on the preliminary issue. He agreed that by denying the title of Ch. Nawab Din, Dil Muhammad had suffered forfeiture of his tenancy. He also took the view that the material already available on the record was sufficient to dispose of all the disputed questions between the parties. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal.
7. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court to consider whether the learned Additional District Judge should not have remanded the case for framing issues on merits and recording evidence of the parties and thus giving an opportunity to the appellants to show that the condition of the lease had been altered by a subsequent agreement between the parties.
8. Mr. K.M.A. Samdani has appeared before us on behalf of the appellants in C.A.No,783. His grievance is that the manner in which the learned Single Judge and the Additional District Judge have chosen to dispose of the suit, has deprived the appellants of a fair and proper trial. The appellants had at least one important question to raise namely whether in accordance with the terms of the lease deed Dil Muhammad had been made a proper offer to purchase the land in dispute. This plea could not be disposed of without a regular trial in which the parties were given an opportunity to lead their evidence. Apart from that, the finding that Dil Muhammad had forfeited his tenancy rights could not be disposed of without framing an issue to that effect and giving him an opportunity to explain his position.
9. We find merit in the contention of Mr. Samdani that there has been no proper trial of the suit and the learned Single Judge and the Additional District Judge were not right in decreeing the suit of Chaudhry Nawab Din without putting the various important questions which arose in the suit to a proper trial. As already indicated, the trial Court had only framed two preliminary issues which did not entirely reflect the various defences which Dil Muhammad had taken in his written statement.
Thus, he had no opportunity to show that there had been no forfeiture of his tenancy rights, that no proper offer had been made to him to purchase the land and that he had never declined the offer.
The observations of the learned Single Judge that the material already present on the record was sufficient to dispose of all the issues arising between them is also unsustainable. In his written statement he had denied that he had repudiated the title of the lessor to the plot and when he appeared in the witness-box during the trial of the preliminary issues, he categorically stated that he was a tenant under Ch. Nawab Din and was bound by the terms of the lease.
10. Apparently, in support of his plea of forfeiture of tenancy, Ch. Nawab Din was relying upon the position which Dil Muhammad had taken in the proceedings under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. Since, as yet the trial Court had framed no issue with regard to forfeiture of tenancy, neither the statements made by Dil Muhammad in those proceedings were put to him in his cross- examination nor was he given any opportunity to explain away those statements. Similarly, in his reply to the notice, Dil Muhammad did not decline to purchase the plot but had disputed the market price mentioned in the notice and had claimed certain deductions on account of an understanding allegedly given to him by Mubarik Din. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not right in coming to the conclusion that the reply to the notice constituted sufficient material for holding that Dil Muhammad had declined the offer of purchase made to him. Had an issue been framed to cover this controversy both parties would have no doubt produced evidence in support of their respective stand.
11. For the reasons stated above, we accept these appeals, set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Additional District Judge and remand the suit to the trial Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law after framing proper issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. It may be stated that the appellants do not any longer press the preliminary issues framed by the trial Court. As the matter has become fairly old, the learned trial Court should dispose of the case expeditiously. The costs in these appeals shall abide the final event.