' 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 Ordinance, 1959 filed by the petitioner against respondents Nos.1 and 2 in which it was alleged that respondent No,1 was his tenant while respondent No,2 was a licensee of respondent No,1 being his mother-in-law. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent.
2. In the written statement filed by respondent No,1 he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and stated that he had nothing to do with the premises and was not residing in the same. As regards respondent No,2, she pleaded that the premises in question did not belong to the petitioner and she was not a tenant under him.
3. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties:-
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant does exist between the parties? OPA (1-A) Whether the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try the petition? OPR.
(2) Relief.
' On the basis of the evidence led before him it was held by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 8th of September, 1986 that respondent No,1 was a tenant under the petitioner and respondent No,2 was his licensee. He, therefore, proceeded to direct the eviction of the respondents.
4. Aggrieved by this order respondent No,2 filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge on 10th of January, 1989 who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the issue of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and dismissed the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner. Hence this Constitutional petition.
5. I have heard Mr. Rashad Masood Gangohi, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.
6. After having heard the learned counsel and perused the record I find that the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is not sustainable. Unfortunately while reversing the findings of the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge excluded from consideration the documents which had been duly exhibited and had formed part of the record on the ground that these documents had not been proved in accordance with law. While coming to this conclusion the Additional District Judge completely ignored that at the time these documents were exhibited, no objection as to the mode of proof was taken and once exhibited the same could not be excluded in the appeal by the appellate Court. This principle is well-settled and need no authority but reference may be made with advantage to Gulzar Hussain v. Abdur Rehman and another (1985 SCMR 301). The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that even in the memorandum of appeal no objection as to these documents was raised. That being so the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been decided in accordance with law.
' As a result of what has been stated above this petition is accepted and the order of the Additional District Judge dated 10th of January, 1989 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the appeal filed by respondent No,2 shall be deemed to be pending before the Additional District Judge and shall be decided afresh. The petitioner shall appear before the District Judge, Lahore on 2nd of June, 1991 who may either hear himself or entrust the same to any Additional District Judge. There shall be no order as to costs.