' The respondents filed an ejectment application against the appellant in respect of portion of the building on first floor of which he is a tenant. The respondents are the owners of the entire building and filed ejectment case on ground of personal requirement for their own use and, occupation. It was also stated that respondent No,8 is of marriageable age but on account of shortage of accommodation it has not been arranged so far and all the other respondents require separate accommodation. The appellant filed his written statement and therefore, the question of non- maintainability of application before him would arise as the parties are governed by the definition of the landlord and tenant as given in Cantonments Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1963. However, it was also observed in the said order by the Rent Controller that in case the present respondent was not entitled to hold or own any property in Pakistan, it would be for the competent forum to decide and that he had no jurisdiction to decide the said issue. Subsequently, the opponent moved another application for recalling the above-said order, but the learned Rent Controller on this application framed the issue with regard to the determination of relationship of landlord and tenant and while deciding that issue observed that there was such relationship between the parties and since the present appellant has challenged the relationship, therefore, the only consequence is to order the ejectment.
3. I have heard Mr. Khalid Lateef, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Advocate for the respondent. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the application moved by Mr. Khalid Lateef for the present appellant before the Rent Controller was to the effect of challenging the maintainability of the ejectment application before the Rent Controller and there is nothing said in this application denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. On the contrary in para. 2 of the written objections filed by the present appellant before the Rent Controller, he has specifically admitted that he-is the tenant of the applicant in the said premises. In these circumstances, since the relationship A of landlord and tenant has been admitted, the Rent Controller should have framed the issue with regard to the maintainability of the application and not with regard to the relationship.
4. I accordingly set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the Additional Controller of Rent Clifton, Karachi, for trial on merits, who should frame the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and proceed with the case according to law. There will be no order as to costs.