' Mst. Hamida Begum and others respondents in this appeal who are owners of property No,J/5- A/J/5-B situated opposite Liaqat Bagh Murree Road, Rawalpindi filed a petition for ejectment against M/s. Habib Bank Limited, their tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent w,e,f, Ist July, 1990 up to the date of filing of the petition at the rate of Rs,7,000 per month, failure to pay advance rent for the period of 3 years as per lease agreement dated 13-1-1991. Allegations of default in payment of rent are contained in paras. Nos,2 to 6 of the ejectment petition which are reproduced as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' This petition was contested by the respondents-appellants by filing of written statement, dated 21-7-1991. Commission of default in payment of rent has been denied in terms of the contention raised in paras. Nos,2 to 6 which are reproduced as under:-- "2. That agreement of lease has been executed in good faith. In terms of para. No,4-B the petitioner is under obligation to carry out such work as may be necessary to render the demised premises suitable for commercial purposes. The construction of Strong Room, Lockers Room are requirements of the respondent-bank to make the premises suitable for commercial purposes. The amount of rent @ Rs,7,000 per month would be enforceable for the premises equipped with Strong Room, Lockers Room in the basement. This is a serious question of the law, which requires adjudication from Civil Court and this honourable Court as a Rent Controller may be pleased to direct the landlord to get title on this Court adjudicated fromCivil Court. The contents of plea No,2 are not admitted.
' That the contents of para. No,3 are not admitted. The Rent @ Rs,7,000 is for the premises equipped with Strong Room, Lockers room. This honourable Court may be pleased to refer the landlord to get her title on this issue adjudicated from the Civil Court. The Bank is making regular provision for rent in its books. The petitioners shall get rent for 3 years in lump sum in fulfilment of their obligation.
(4) That contents of para. No,4 are not admitted. Non-receipt of the rent is entirely upon the petitioners, construction of Strong Room, Lockers Room in basement and shifting of existing stairs of basement from centre to a wall side is an obligation of the petitioneRs, The petitioners in good faith arranged for a very costly door of Strong Room for affixation in structure of Strong Room. The petitioners mean to evade their II part from this, the petitioners whenever called upon to carry out the said constructions, said to the respondent bank that the petitioner No,1 instead of getting the amount and depositing in bank and submitting statement in Court for the minors share of rent. She shall purchase some other property with the amount of rent and that her amount of rent in the bank is quite safe and that the petitioners also kept about Rs,2 Lacs in the bank and that the petitioners would further require loan for which appropriate measures at the appropriate time of purchase of property had been agreed by the bank. It is submitted that the petitioners never made any complaint for non-receipt of rent to any other concerned authority and that she has served no notice before filing this petition. Filing of the petition for ejectment, reveals mala fide and ill- intentions of the petitioners and that they have betrayed confidence. This is a complicated question of law, to be adjudicated in the matter.
(5) That, the contents of para. No,5 are not admitted. The respondent-bank entirely assisted the petitioners in execution of lease agreement in good faith. Non-receipt of rent is entirely upon the petitioneRs,"
6. That the contents of para. No,6 are not admitted."
' A perusal of the reply submitted by the' appellants clearly shows that default in payment of rent is not admitted. A counter plea has been raised in the written statement, justifying the actual non- payment of rent to the landlords and deposit thereof in the bank for the benefit of landlords.
Learned Rent Controller, however, instead of framing of issues and recording of evidence, straightaway dismissed the ejectment petition vide order dated 21-7-1991 holding that default is not established on the record as per pleas taken in the ejectment petition. Aggrieved of this order, the respondents filed appeal before the learned District Judge/Appellate Authority, Rawalpindi who vide order dated 8-3-1992 accepted the appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and instead of framing of issues and recording of evidence or remanding the case to the learned Rent Controller for proceeding in the above manner is required by law to be done, straightaway passed an order of ejectment against the appellants holding that they have committed default in payment of rent. This order has been challenged in this second appeal by the tenants.
2. Sh. Imtiaz Ahmed, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants whereas M. Muhammad Fayyaz Ahmad Khawaja, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
3. In support of this appeal learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the plea of default taken by the respondents in ejectment petition had since been denied, the decision thereof could not have been rendered without putting the matter into an issue and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Learned counsel contends that even an ejectment application is to be judiciously decided and the minimum bare requirement for decision of a dispute relating to the rights involved in the ejectment petition is to put the matter to issue and give an opportunity to lead evidence in support of respective contention of the parties before rendering a decision once, according to the learned counsel the impugned order of ejectment passed by the learned first appellate Court is a nullity in the eyes of law inasmuch as the same has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties and to lead evidence in support of their contentions and that it has illegally been held that the appellants are defaulters, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the default as well as relationship of landlord and tenant having been admitted in the written statement, there was no controversy left to be decided by putting the same to issue and affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, therefore, order of ejectment has rightly been passed by the learned first appellate Court. Learned counsel has contended that as Evidence Act as well as the C.P.C. Are not applicable to the proceedings taken under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, it was not at all necessary to frame issues and to allow appellant to lead evidence in support of their case inasmuch as Court of Rent Controller which powers were being exercised even by the learned District Judge/Appellate Authority is not a Court stricto senso and hence is not bound to follow procedure frame issues or to record evidence and it is only satisfaction of the special tribunal which is sufficient for passing an order of ejectment, which satisfaction has rightly been recorded.
Hence appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments.Addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. A plain reading of the pleadings of the parties on the question of default clearly shows that the same do give rise to a controversy which require framing of an issue to be determined after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Argument of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority exercised powers under the provisions of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is not bound to frame an issue and record evidence is incorrect and is misconceived. The ejectment petition was filed in this case on 10-7-1991 on which date Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984 was in force. As per provisions of Article 2(a) of the said Order word "Court" is defined as under: "'Court' includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence." Provisions of the order apply to all Courts and authorities as is clear as per Article 1(2) of the said Order which is reproduced as under:- "It extends to the whole of Pakistan and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court including a Court martial, a tribunal or other authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers or jurisdiction, but does not apply to proceedings before an arbitrator."
' The Court of Rent Controller is definitely a Special Tribunal constituted under the law and is authorised to record evidence and determine rights of the parties, and hence, is bound to follow the bare minimum principles of recording of evidence to decide controversial issues. In the case of Malik Aman v. Haji Muhammad Tufail (PLD 1976 Lah. 1446) it has been held that even before a Rent Controller the party has a right to be given an opportunity to examine or cross-examine the witnesses. Law laid down in the aforementioned judgment at pages 1448 and 1449 is reproduced as under:-- "However, the main question to be seen in the present case is; as to whether by following the procedure as mentioned above any prejudice has been caused to the interest of the appellants; and whether as such the procedure so adopted is not against the principle of natural justice? The statutory provision as contained in section 13(2)(iv) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance lays down that a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant should apply to the Controller for a direction in this behalf; and if the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the appellant is satisfied that the building or rented land reasonably and in good faith is required by the landlord for the reconstruction of a building on the site, and the site, and the landlord has obtained the necessary sanction for the said reconstruction from the Municipal Committee, then he may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. The question which arises for consideration is as to how to attain satisfaction which can enable the Controller to pass any order as required by the provision referred to above. It is admitted that more than one witness was examined by the respondent landlord as well as by the appellants to prove their respective contentions. They were subjected to examination and cross- examination in one case only and not in any other case. There were as many as three issues on merits, relating to reconstruction, damage and enhancement of rent. There is no doubt that whole of the property was to be reconstructed according to the respondent, but as to whether any damage had been caused and rent was sought to be enhanced by the respondent in respect of each and every property in occupation of respective tenants could be determined by recording evidence separately in all the cases. It is possible that in the case of one of the appellants issue No,2 with regard to damage might be proved while in the case of others it was not proved.
Similarly, issue No,3 with regard to enhancement of rent might be proved in case of one or two and in all other cases it might not be proved if evidence was recorded separately.
' The learned Controller has, however, recorded evidence in one case only and has copied down verbatim the same in all other cases, without giving opportunity to all the appellants to examine or cross-examine the witnesses in their cases. This has resulted in grave prejudice to the case of the appellants.
' The Controller, according to the relevant provision as referred to above, has to be satisfied in respet of each and every case independently and in context of the evidence produced in relation thereto. In the present case the issues, as mentioned above, show that if evidence is recorded separately then different material may be brought on record by the parties concerned in order to prove their respective contentions. The Controller has to be satisfied in context of such material and evidence before passing any order. Since no material was allowed to be brought on record, except by one of the appellants, therefore, it cannot be said that case of all the appellants has not been prejudiced otherwise. It appears that on the basis of the evidence recorded in one case all the cases have been decided. It is apparently against the principle of natural justice and the orders passed by the Courts below in this behalf cannot be sustained in law.
' It has been held in Hassan Gul v. The State (PLD 1975 Kat 507) that where statements were recorded in one case only and carbon copies of depositions were placed on other cases, the procedure adopted by the Court was illegal. It has been further held that the Court should apply mind independently to the facts and circumstances of each case. In that case the statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded only in one case but were made available for other cases in verbatim. It was held that the procedure so adopted was illegal.
' Similar view has been taken in Muhammad Younis v. The Crown (PLD 1953 Lah. 321) and The State v. Kalandar Khan (PLD 1971 Pash. 119). It is true that the matter in question in both the cases referred to above was covered by the prescribed criminal or civil procedure, but since the principle of natural justice also demands the same as laid down by the said authorities, therefore, in the present case evidence should have been recorded separately and then thereafter mind having been applied independently in context of the evidence brought on record in each and every case the same should have been disposed of."
' It stands clearly established, therefore, that the learned District Judge while accepting the appeal had no lawful authority to pass an order of ejectment straightaway without putting the controversy regarding commission of default into issue and giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contention.
' Consequently I accept this appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge, remand the case to the learned Rent Controller for decision thereof afresh after framing of issues arising out of pleadings of the parties and giving them opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. The parties are left to bear their own costs.