' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 8th March, 1988 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of the Rent Controller dated 5th October, 1987.
2. The dispute in this case relates to property bearing No, SE-XVIII-1-S2/1, Mohallah Amritsari, Moghalpura Lahore. On 12th February, 1986 an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was filed by Ahmad Din respondent No,1 herein seeking the eviction of the petitioner from the house in question on the ground that after the purchase of the property from its owner Bashir Ahmed son of Noor Muhammad, the respondent had rented out it to the petitioner on 16th October, 1980. The eviction was sought on the grounds that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of the rent; he has damaged the property and that the same was required bona fide and in good faith by the respondent for the use of his own occupation. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and pleaded that the house in question belonged to Bashir who had gifted the same to the petitioner during his lifetime who was in possession of the house as owner thereof. It was also stated that a civil suit between the parties was pending. The execution of the rent note was denied and it was dubbed as fictitious and fraudulent. The learned Rent Controller after framing the preliminary issue as to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and recorded the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a tenant under respondent No,1. He, therefore, vide his order dated 5th October, 1987 proceeded to direct the eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by an Addl. District Judge at Lahore on 8th March, 1988. Hence this petition.
3. Mr. Muhammad Rashid Ahmad, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of by the Addl. District Judge in accordance with law. It is argued that one of the questions raised before the appellate Court was that as a civil suit with regard to the title of the property was pending, the respondent could not claim to be the landlord of the premises. The grievance of the learned counsel is that this argument was brushed aside by the Addl. District Judge by observing that the civil suit had since been dismissed as stated at the Bar. The learned counsel submits that no such statement was ever made by him and the fact that the civil suit was pending is borne out by the certified copies of the interim orders passed in the civil suit.
4. Mr. Muhammad Siddique Butt, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No,1 however, argued that the petitioner had in the first instance filed a suit in which he claimed title to the property on the basis of an oral gift for the whole of the property which was however withdrawn by him on 26th April, 1987. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent and had executed a rent note which stood proved on the record.
5. A perusal of the order of the Additional District Judge shows that the plea of the petitioner that he had become an owner of the property in dispute after the death of Muhammad Bashir the co- sharer was repelled inter alia on the ground that the suit for declaration filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the trial Court. This observation is based upon an admission said to have been made at the Bar before the learned Addl. District Judge. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that at the time when the appeal was decided by the Addl. District Judge a civil suit filed by the petitioner was pending while the earlier suit had been withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit. That being so the observation of the Additional District Judge that the suit filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the trial Court is factually incorrect. A perusal of the judgment of the Additional District Judge leave no doubt that the main consideration on the basis of which the petitioner was non-suited was the dismissal of the civil suit. As his observation is factually incorrect and is belied by the record of the civil suit, the appeal filed by the petitioner does not appear to have been decided in accordance with law. The question as to what is the effect of the civil suit pending before the Court will have to be determined by the Additional District Judge. It shall be open to the respondent to raise all objections in this respect before the Additional District Judge.
' As a result of what has been stated above this petition is accepted, the order of the Additional District Judge dated 8th March, 1988 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the petitioner's appeal shall be deemed to be pending before the appellate Court and shall be decided afresh in accordance with law.
' The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Lahore on 25th May, 1991 who may either hear the appeal himself or entrust it to any other Additional District Judge.
' As the ejectment petition out of which the dispute has arisen was instituted in the year 1986 it is directed that the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be disposed of within two months.
' There shall be no order as to costs.