1. ' This revision application has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central) on 31-3-1991 whereby he allowed the Civil Appeal No,20 of 1989 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Vth Civil Judge, Karachi (Central) in Suit No,4985 of 1982.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the present applicant had filed the suit for declaration and injunction which came up for trial before the Vth Civil Judge, Karachi (Central). The case of the applicant/plaintiff is that he was the tenant in respect of one godown/store on the premises situate on Plot No,3, Auto Mobile Area (Commercial Area) Liaquatabad, Karachi and that he had the right to exhibit and display the shoes and Chappals business on the main iron entrance gate of the alleged premises. It is further his case that the alleged tenancy initially was oral with deceased Dr. Major Ahad Khan, the predecessor-in-title of the present respondents but was subsequently reduced in writing on 28-7-1971; and that initially the rent was fixed at Rs,500 per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs,650 per month. It is also his case that at that time he had paid a sum of Rs,25,000 to the deceased Dr. Major Ahad Khan by way of Fixed Deposit for which no separate receipt was issued but the same was acknowledged in the abovesaid agreement and even after the death of Dr. Major Ahad Khan, he offered the monthly rent to the present respondent No,1 who avoided to receive the same and threatened the present applicant to eject him from the said premises and to close down the main iron entrance gate. The present applicant had, therefore, filed the said suit praying for the reliefs that it be declared that he was the tenant of the said godown/store and was entitled to exhibit and display shoes and Chappals on the iron entrance gate. He also prayed for a consequential preventive injunction.
3. ' The present respondents filed their written statement in which they denied the execution of the said agreement of tenancy; and contended that the present applicant was an encroacher who had unlawfully occupied the entrance space to the said property taking advantage of failing health of their ancestor Dr. Major Ahad Khan; and that the applicant was causing nuisance and annoyance to the persons of the locality and the patients. They denied the signature of Dr. Major Ahad Khan on the agreement and also denied that he had received a sum of Rs,25,000 from the present applicant. Some other legal pleas were also taken in the written statement.
4. ' On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the trial Court;
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in law?
(2) Whether the agreement dated 28-7-1971 has been signed or not by late Dr. Major Ahad Khan and is a valid document?
(3) Whether the plaintiff paid Rs,25,000 to the late Dr. Major Abdul Ahad Khan or not as fixed deposit in pursuance of the alleged agreement?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is tenant of the defendant in respect of godown/store room in the property of the defendant?
5. ' Whether the plaintiff under the agreement dated 28-7-1971 has a legal or contractual right to make use of the fixing, exhibiting and displaying Chappals and shoes?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim 'the reliefs prayed?
(7) What should the decree be?
6. ' In the trial Court the plaintiff examined himself and P.Ws. Muhammad Iftikhar, Abrar Ahmed, Maqbool Ahmed and Syed Sabir Ali and closed his side while the defendant No,1/respondent No,1 examined only himself and closed his side. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties was pleased to decide Issues Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in favour of the present applicant. Issue No,1 was not pressed and consequently the suit of the present applicant was decreed as prayed.
7. ' Being aggrieved the present respondents challenged the said judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No,20 of 1989 which was heard and decided by the learned IInd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central) whereby he set aside the said judgment and decree and thus the present applicant has filed this revision application.
8. ' I have heard Mr. Jawed Raza, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ibrahim Pishori, the learned counsel for the respondents. At the very outset the learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the judgment of the learned appellate Court is not in conformity with the requirements as provided in Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C. He has submitted that there were seven issues settled in the suit and the learned Civil Judge had discussed the Issues Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in detail and assigned reasons therefor whereas the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge by a very short order has set aside the findings of the trial Court without giving detailed reasons and without discussing the issues. The findings of the lower appellate Court show that he has only seen the tenancy agreement (Exh.D/3). When confronted with this situation the learned counsel for the respondents agreed that this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge cannot be sustained in law.
9. Accordingly it was agreed by the learned counsel that the matter may be remanded to the appellate Court to re-hear the appeal and give detailed finding issuewise. In this view of the matter, I allow this revision application, set aside the judgment and decree of lower Appellate Court and remand the matter to the Court of IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central) to re-hear the appeal of the present respondents and give the findings on issues within three months from the date of this order. There will be no order as to costs. The parties or their Advocates will appear before the lower appellate Court on 2-9-1992.