KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.- Allah Rakha claiming to be the land lord has filed this writ petition questioning the leagality of the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, dated 6.6.1993. By this judgment the learned Additional District Judge set aside the judgment and order of the learned Rent Controller dated 6.1.1993 and dismissed the ejectment application brought by Allah Rakha the present petitioner against Muhammad Amin, respondent No.1.
2. It was on 6.11.1988 that the writ petitioner filed the ejectment application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for seeking eviction of respondent No. 1 from a residential house constructed on khasara No.8403/40/96 measuring 2 1/4 marlas situated in Gali Karim Baksh, Abadi pir Bakhsh, Baghbanpura Jadid, Gujranwala. The writ petitioner claimed that the house was rented out to respondent No.1 under Rent Deed dated 4.6.1987 at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. It was averred that from May. 1988 onward the tenant/respondent No.1 has not paid the rent.
3. A number of opportunities Were given to the tenant/respondent No. 1 to file his written reply and on his failure, his defence was struck of on 2.4.1989. However, inspire of that, on 193.1990 his better statement was recorded by the learned Rent Controller in which he asserted that he has purchased the house from Allah Rakha, the petitioner-Land lord. He categorically denied that he was tenant either of Allah Rakha or of Mst. Nasim Akhtar an, ex wife of Allah Rakha. Mst. Nasim Akhtar had applied to the Rent Controller for impleading her as a party and at the time of recording of better statement of Mohammad Amin, her application for implead ment was pending.
When she heard the better statement of Mohammad Amin tenant, she offered that if Muhammad Amin was to swear on Holy Quran that he was given possession by Allah Rakha then she would, withdrawn her application. It is recorded in the order in the order of the Rent Controller dated 193.1990 (a certified copy of which has been produced before me and has been placed on record of this case) that Mohammad Amin had taken oath on Holy Quran that he obtained possession of the said house from Allah Rakha the writ petitioner. On this the application of Mst. Nasim Akhtar was dismissed, and the case was proceeded with.
4. Only two witnesses Abdul Gani PW.1 and the writ petitioner as PW.2 appeared to support claim made in the ejectment petition. As the defence of tenant/respondent No.1 was struck of, no evidence was recorded on his behalf. However, it is admitted by both the learned counsel that Muhammad Amin was granted opportunity to participate in the proceedings and did cross- examine the witnesses. The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence and examination of record accepted the ejectment application on 6.1.1993.
5. An appeal was taken to the court of District Judge, which was heard and allowed by judgment dated 6.6.1993 passed by a learned Additional District Judge, to whom the case was entrusted. In his detailed judgment the learned Additional District Judge has crane to the conclusion that execution of the rent EcA/4 was highly doubtful in as much as according to his own claim, Allah Rakha landlord remained out of country for about 14 years, and it was his sister who got the document executed on his behalf. According to the learned Additional District Judge, h was strange that inspire of this assertion the document ExA/4 bears signatures of Allah Rakha landlord and not of his sister. The learned Addl. District Judge has recorded that the rent deed ExiA/4 is a result of some forgery and fabrication.
6. No serious controversy can be raised against the reasoning and finding of the learned Additional District Judge. However, in my view the matter does not end there. On record there is a 4 page document, which is marked as EjcA/1 by the learned Rent Controller. This document is a report of one Mr. Ejaz Nazar Sheikh, Advocate dated 28.9.1988, who it seems was appointed as Local Commissioner by the learned Civil Judge in the suit entitled Salim Akhtar vs. Allah Rakha". The report also incorporates the statement of Mohammad Amin, Allah Rakha and some others. From this statement of Mohammad Amin, it is clear that Mohammad Amin is a tenant in the house inasmuch as he states that had obtained key of the house from the sister of Allah Rakha and he has been paying rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month to Allah Rakha and has been obtaining receipt of the payment. The statement of Allah Rakha is to the effect that he had divorced his wife Saleem Akhtar who had no connection with the house. He asserted that he never made any gift of the house to Saleem Akhtar. He also said that house was rented out to Muhammad Amin, who has been paying him the rent regularly. These statements were made on 20.9.1988.
7. It is not clear as to why the document ExA/1 alongwith above two statements of Muhammad Amin and Allah Rakha were not brought to the notice of the learned Additional District Judge dealing with the appeal. The learned Additional District Judge has totally confined his attention to the rent note ExA/4. In my view the statements recorded in ExA/1 merit to be given serious consideration before adjudicating the questions of relationship of landlord and tenant and the eviction. The impugned order having been passed in disregard and non-consideration of above material evidence cannot be said to have been passed with lawful authority.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 attempted to argue that the document ExA/1 was wrongly in evidence and therefore should be ruled out of consideration. I am afraid the argument cannot be accepted. It is well settled that a document once admitted in evidence cannot be ruled out of consideration on subsequent objection to its admissibility. This plea of the counsel is rejected.
9. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above I accept this writ petition, declare the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 6.6.1993 as having been passed without lawful authority and hence of no legal effect. I remand the case to the learned Additional District for disposal of the appeal afresh after considering entire evidence on record and hearing of parties in the light of this judgment. As the ejectment petition is almost 6 years old, I would direct that the Additional District Judge shall dispose of the appeal within 3 months from the date of receipt of the record. There will be no order as to costs.