' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 against the petitioner seeking their eviction from shop situate Main Bazar, Ghala Mandi Silanwali, Tehsil and District Sargodha on the grounds of subletting, personal use and reconstruction.
2. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 produced their evidence on 7-3-1990 whereafter the case was adjourned for the evidence of petitioners to 10-4-1990 on which case no evidence was forthcoming and case was adjourned for production of evidence of the petitioners on 23rd May, 1990. On that date, instead of producing evidence, petitioners filed an application that petitioner No,3, Munir Ahmad was proceeding to Haj and, therefore, the case be adjourned. Finding no merit in the application, the Rent Controller rejected it and proceeded to close the evidence of the petitioners.
Subsequently, on 27th May, 1990, an order of ejectment was passed against the petitioners and in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 5. That order was challenged by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 29th November, 1990.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition, has contended that the petitioners were not afforded sufficient opportunity to produce evidence and in the circumstances of the case, the Rent Controller acted arbitrarily in closing the evidence after allowing only one adjournment.
Learned Counsel for respondents initially defended the impugned order but later on, stated that with a view to obviate the delay and avoid any further controversy, he has no objection if this petition is accepted and petitioners are allowed to produce evidence before the Rent Controller.
This offer on the part of the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 5 is just and fair and is accordingly accepted.
' As a result of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the application for eviction filed by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 against the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before the Rent Controller and shall be decided after allowing one opportunity to the petitioners to produce evidence. The parties shall appear before the Rent Controller or a successor on 26th July, 1992. The Rent Controller shall fix a date in the month of September for production of evidence by the petitioners. In case the petitioners fail to produce evidence on the fixed date, their evidence shall be deemed to have been closed. No order as to costs.