1. ' These are ten connected First Rent Appeals Nos. FA.Os. 81 to 91 of 1991, by various occupants of different properties, whose ejectments had been ordered by Additional Rent Controller, Cantonment, Lahore, in almost similarly worded orders passed on 14-2-1991. Out of them, five ejectment cases were filed by Mst. Shakeela Begum, and the other five by her sister Mst. Nafeesa Begum. In all these cases, occupants of the properties had denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, whereupon, a preliminary issue covering the dispute in each case was settled by the Rent Controller. After recording of respondents' evidence, the Rent Controller in his order recorded on 14-2-1991, noted that appellants' Advocate gave statement that no evidence shall be given on their behalf and thereupon having found that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and since' payment/tender of rent was not pleaded, directed their ejectment from the premises and gave them three months each to vacate and deliver possession vide his separate orders passed in each case on the same day. As these appeals arose from a similar factual matrix and common questions of facts and law arise for decision in them, they are being heard together for deciding them in a common judgment.
2. ' At the hearing learned counsel for the appellants contended that evidence brought on record in each case did not establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. There was neither any agreement of tenancy nor any rent receipt to show payment of rent. It was further contended that the appellants were condemned unheard. No opportunity of leading defence was allowed to them. In fact, their counsel was ascribed a wrong statement that no evidence shall be given in defence. Muhammad Siddique Butt, Advocate, learned counsel for appellants who also happened to be their Advocate in proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller in his own affidavit denied the statement attributed to him and deposed firmly that Additional Rent Controller had prepared an incorrect record. There is no counter-affidavit either from the Advocate or the party from the other side to contradict and controvert the contents of affidavit sworn by Mr. Muhammad Siddique Butt, Advocate and I have no good reasons to doubt its correctness. From the nature of the proceedings and the material brought on record by the respondents to establish existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, the appellants or their Advocate were not expected to allow the cases to go unrebutted and suffer ejectment. On record, appellants appeared to have been denied right of adequate defence and seemed to have been condemned unheard. A reasonable opportunity of defence was undoubtedly right of the appellants and in the existing circumstances they were denied that right on the basis of a statement erroneously attributed to their Advocate who, as said above, clearly denied its correctness. In this view of the matter, all the above appeals are bound to succeed and ejectment orders which proceeded on one-sided version of respondents were liable to be set aside.
3. ' Having regard to the aforesaid, above ten appeals are allowed, orders impugned in them are set aside and the ejectment cases are remitted to the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantonment for deciding of them afresh after allowing an opportunity of producing defence to the appellants in each case. Further, it shall be open to respondents who are applicants in the ejectment cases to apply for producing more material on file and if such a request is made, it shall be decided on its own merits by the Additional Rent Controller. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals.
4. ' Records be returned.