' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Sialkot dated 21st February, 1983 upholding the order of the Rent Controller dated 9 1979 whereby petition under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by respondents 1 to 5, was accepted.
2. The dispute relates to property bearing No,224-T.C.S. Noor Shakargarh. An application under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Restriction Ordinance, 1989 was filed by respondents Nos.1 to 5 against petitioners alleging that they were in possession of the property in question as tenants under them. In the written statement filed by the respondents they denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and pleaded that the property which was evacuee in nature had never been transferred to the petitioners but Dr. Fazal was the transferee of the property. The Rent Controller framed an issue as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and recorded the evidence of respondents Nos.1 to 5. The case was fixed for 6th June, 1979 for recording the evidence of the petitioners. On that day, the witnesses of the petitioners were in attendance but an objection was raised by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 5 that as no list of witnesses has been submitted by the petitioners, the statement of the witnesses could not be recorded. This objection was upheld by the Rent Controller who observed, that respondents were not entitled to produce any evidence on account of failure to file list of witnesses. As a consequence of this order, the petitioners could not examine any witness except themselves. The ejectment petition was accepted by the Rent Controller on 9th July, 1979 who held the petitioners to be tenants under the respondents. This order was upheld by the Addl. District Judge on 21-2-1983. Hence this Constitutional petition.
3. It was argued by Mr. Abdul Wahid Chaudhry, Advocate that the petitioners were denied a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence contrary to the provisions of Section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. It was stressed by the learned counsel that as the witnesses of the petitioners were in attendance on 6th June, 1979 the Rent Controller could not have refused to record their statements. This contention is well-founded. On no principle could the Rent Controller refuse to examine the witnesses who were present. Faced with this situation the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 could not defend the A impugned order and prayed that the matter be remanded to the trial Court with the direction to complete the proceedings and re-decide the matter at any early date.
4. For the foregoing reasons this petition is accepted with the result that the ejectment petition filed by respondents Nos.1 to 5 against the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before the Rent Controller and shall be decided by him afresh. The parties shall appear before the Rent Controller/Civil Judge Ist Class Shakargarh on 5th March, 1990. The Rent Controller shall record and complete the evidence of the petitioners within the month of March, 1991. The ejectment petition shall be decided by or before the 15th of April, 1991.
5. A compliance of this order shall be reported by the Rent Controller to the Registrar of this Court.
There shall be no order as to costs.