' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 assails the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sialkot dated 9th April, 1989 whereby he reversed the order of the Rent Controller dated 20th July, 1988.
2. On 8th of December, 1987 Abdul Ghani Butt, respondent No,2 herein filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. 1959 seeking the eviction of the petitioner from a shop situate in Tehsil Bazar Sialkot which is in his occupation as a tenant under respondent No,2 on the grounds that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent and that the shop was required by respondent No,2 for his own use and occupation. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that respondent No,2 had failed to prove both the grounds. He, therefore, proceeded to reject the application for eviction on 20th July, 1988.
3. Aggrieved by this order respondent No, 2 filed an appeal which was accepted by an Additional District Judge, Sialkot who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller both on the issue of personal need as also the default. Hence this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Additional District Judge while reversing the finding of the learned Rent Controller has misread the evidence on the record, and has acted contrary to law declared by the superior Courts.
Mr. Taki Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for respondent No,1 has on the other hand supported the judgment of the Additional District Judge on the issue of personal need. He however, states that he does not wish to press the ground of default in payment of rent.
5. The learned Rent Controller while holding that respondent No,2 was not entitled to have the shop vacated for his own- personal use had taken into consideration the two factors; first that in the notice Ex.R1 sent by the landlord according to his statement as A.W.3 in November/December, 1987, he did not demand the vacation of the shop for personal use but instead he asked for enhancement in rent and secondly, that Abdul Qadus another tenant of the respondent of another shop in the same building had vacated that shop but the landlord instead of occupying it for his own personal use, rented out the Same to other tenant.
6. Unfortunately, while reversing the findings of the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge failed to advert to either of these grounds. Under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 the District Court at the relevant time was the final Court of appeal and was under an obligation to adjudicate upon the dispute after consulting all the relevant evidence on the record. Furthermore it was required under the law to take into account the reasoning which prevailed with the Rent Controller for taking contrary view. It is regrettable that the Additional District Judge failed to do either of the two things. The notice Ex,R 1 was totally kept out of consideration. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that Abdul Qudus R.W.1 has vacated the shop of which the possession was given to the landlord The question has arisen as to whether the shop vacated by Abdul Qudus was suitable or not to the need of the petitioner should have been taken by the Additional District Judge. In these circumstances it is apparent that the appeal filed by the petitioner was not decided by the Additional District Judge.
' As a result of what has been stated above his petition is accepted and the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 9th April, 1989 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 in the District Court and shall be decided afresh in accordance with law.
' The parties shall appear before the District Judge, Sialkot on Ist of June, 1991 who may either hear the appeal himself or entrust it to some other Additional District Judge.
' As the dispute remained pending for a number of years, it is directed that the Additional District Judge shall decide the appeal within the month of June, 1991. A compliance of this order shall be reported to the Registrar of this Court.
' There shall be no order as to costs.