' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinace, 1959, filed by respondent No,1 against the petitioner on 5th December, 1979, seeking his eviction from a shop out of Property No,1053-G Yakki Gate, Lahore. It was alleged that the respondent was a tenant in respect of the shop at a monthly rent of Rs,70 and had defaulted in payment of rent with effect from January,1977. The other grounds pleaded were subletting and damage to the property. On the basis of the evidence led before it, the Rent Controller on 6th July, 1982, found that the rent of premises was Rs,40 per month and that the entire rent for the period in question stood paid to the landlord/respondent No,1. The issues regarding the subletting and damage were also decided in favour of the petitioner/tenant. As consequence of these findings, the ejectment petition was dismissed on 6th July, 1982.
2. Aggrieved by this order, the landlord filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent. The Additional District Judge, however, affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the rent of premises was RsA0 and not 70 as claimed by the landlord. The findings on other two issues, namely, subletting and damage were also affirmed. This judgment of the Additional District Judge has been assailed by the petitioner by filing this Constitutional petition.
3. Ch. Inayat Ullah, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged two points:-
(i) That while deciding issue of default, the evidence produced by the petitioner has altogether been ignored from consideration by the Additional District Judge. It was emphasized that as the appellate Court was reversing the finding recorded by the Rent Controller, it was obligatory upon it to have discussed the entire evidence led by the parties and also to deal with the reasons which had prevailed upon the Rent. Controller for having taken a contrary view.
(ii) That mere fact that the receipts were not being issued or had not been produced by the tenant was by itself not conclusive and the petitioner could have proved the payment of rent by producing of the evidence.
4. Mr. Muhammad Saleem Shahnazi, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that finding of fact recorded by the Additional District Judge was not liable to be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It was also argued that no prejudice has been caused to the respondent No,1 by non-consideration of the evidence, produced by him inasmuch as the statement of the witnesses examined by the appellant were contradictory and not worthy of any reliance.
5. From the perusal of the judgment of the Additional District Judge, it is quite evident, that while deciding the issue of default, he has ignored altogether the evidence produced by the petitioner. In order to prove that the rent for the period in question was being regularly paid by the petitioner, he had examined two witneses, namely, Saeed-ur-Rehman RW.1, Shafique Khan RW. 2 and had appeared himself as RW 3. Unfortunately, while deciding the appeal, the statement of none of these witnesses was adverted to by the Additional District Judge. In the present case, it is to be noted that on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller had held the tenant not be be a defaulter and as this finding was being reversed by the Additional District Judge, a duty was cast upon him to have reappraised the evidence. The judgment of the Additional District Judge suffers from non-consideration of material evidence and as such cannot be sustained.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge being one of facts is not liable to be interfered by this Court cannot be accepted as it is well-settled that if material evidence is ignored by a Court or Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, the judgment rendered by it is subject to correction in the exercise of power of judicial review by this Court.
' As a result of what has been said above, this petition is accepted, the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge, dated 20th February, 1983, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result that the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending and shall be decided afresh. The parties shall appear before the District Judge, Lahore, on 27th February, 1991, who may hear the appeal himself or to entrust it to any Additional District Judge. As the ejectment petition was filed as far back as 1979, it is directed that the appeal shall be decided by the Additional District Judge, within a period of one month. Compliance of this order shall be reported to the Registrar of this Court. There shall be no orders as to costs.