' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by petitioner on 18th July, 1981 in which she sought the ejectment of the respondents from property bearing No,NE-XVII-1-AS-2 behind Shalimar Gardens. Baghbanpura, Lahore on the ground of personal use and subletting by respondent No,1 to respondent No,2. In his written statement respondent No,1 denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, disputed the execution of the rent note and stated that if there was any rent note in existence it had no validity.
2. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties:--
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? O.P.A.
(2) Whether the premises in dispute have been incorrectly described in the petition, if so, what is the actual description? O.P.R.
(3) Whether the respondents are entitled to compensatory costs under section 13(7) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance? O.P.R.
(4) Relief.
3. In support of his case the petitioner examined Ghulam Sarwar A.W.1, Saeed Ahmad A.W.2, Muhammad Usman Farooqi A.W.3, Maqbool Ahmad A.W.4, Zika A. Malik, Handwriting Expert A.W.5 and Saudur Rehman, Special Attorney of the petitioner as A.W.6. Apart from this oral evidence, the petitioner also produced certain documents including rent note A.W.6/1. Respondent No,1 on the other hand, examined his father` Riaz-ud-Din as R.W.1 and appeared himself as R.W.2. He also produced documents Mark 'A' to 'Y.
4. The Rent Controller by means of his order dated 8th October, 1988 held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stood proved. He, therefore, proceeded to direct the ejectment of the respondents from the house in question.
5. This order of the Rent Controller was challenged by respondent No,1 by filing an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge on 26th of June, 1989 on the finding that the documents produced by the petitioner pertained to House No,3 while the ejectment petition related to House No,2. As a consequence of this finding, the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide his impugned judgment, dated 26- 6-1989.
6. Mr. Amir Alam Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while reversing the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No,1, the Additional District Judge has omitted to consider material evidence on the record. The learned counsel emphasised that apart from the two documents noticed by the Additional District Judge, the petitioner had produced other documents and also examined six witnesses but neither oral evidence nor other documents were adverted to by the Additional District Judge.
7. Mr. Rashid Masood Gangohi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent has on the other hand contended that as the real dispute between the parties is with regard to the title of the property, the petitioner should have recourse to the Civil Court. He has relied upon Allah Banda and other v. Niaz Ahmad and others 1989 SCMR 1188 and Shaukat Javed v. Sh. Abdul Khaliq and 2 others 1991 SCM R 215.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while reversing the findings of the Rent Controller the evidence as a whole was neither referred to nor apprised by the Additional District Judge is amply supported by the record. Even the learned counsel for respondent No,1 was not in a position to controvert this argument but instead made a grievance that the documents produced by him to show that the property does not belong to the petitioner too have not been considered. It is thus obvious that the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been decided in accordance with law by the Additional District Judge.
9. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that in the circumstances of the case the petitioner should resort to the Civil Court, suffice it to say by now it is well-settled that a Rent Controller can decide the question of title while determining the existence or otherwise of relationship of a landlord and tenant and it is only when he finds that the title is not free from doubt, that the landlord can be directed to go to the Civil Courts. This aspect of the matter need not be commented upon any further, lest it prejudices the rights of any of the parties before the Additional District Judge to whom the case is being remanded. Such a plea may be raised before the Additional District Judge.
' As a result of what has been stated above this petition is allowed, the impugned judgment of Additional District Judge dated 26th June, 1989 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the appeal filed by respondent No,1 shall be deemed to be pending before lower Appellate Court.
' The parties shall appear before the District Judge, Lahore on 8th June, 1991 who may either hear the appeal himself or entrust it to another Additional District Judge.
' As the ejectment petition was filed on 18th of July, 1981 it is directed that the appeal shall be decided within the month of June, 1991. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.