' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 30-11-1992.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent brought an application for eviction of the appellant on the ground of default for the months of September to November 1989, and impairing the value of the property of the respondent. The appellant contested the ejectment application. It was averred that the respondent had agreed to sell the property in his favour for a sum of Rs,80,000 and he had received the entire sale price of the property in dispute. As the respondent refused to register the sale-deed in favour of the appellant, therefore, he filed a suit for specific performance of agreement, which was pending in the Civil Court. The Rent Controller framed two issues (1) whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and (2) relief. After recording the evidence of the parties it was held by the Rent Controller that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established. On the basis of such finding, he made a direction for the eviction of the appellant from the suit property. The appellant challenged this order in appeal, which was disposed of by an Additional District Judge, who observed that:-- "mere agreement for the sale of property did not in any manner affect the title of the respondent in respect of the property in question. Unless and until decree for specific performance of such agreement for the sale of the property was passed in favour of the appellant or sale-deed in respect of such property executed by competent person and such sale-deed was got registered in favour of the appellant."
' After making such observation, the learned Additional District Judge remanded the case with the following directions:-- "In view of the above discussion, this appeal is partly allowed. Findings recorded under Issue No,1 by the learned Rent Controller vide the impugned decision are upheld. Findings recorded under issue No,2 vide the impugned order directing the eviction of the appellant from the property in question are set aside. The case is remanded with the direction that the learned Rent Controller shall proceed to decide the ejectment petition in accordance with law, after having framed further issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, and recording evidence of the parties in respect thereof. Parties are left to bear their own costs and are directed to appear in the Court of learned Rent Controller for further necessary proceedings on 23-10-1991."
3. The respondent challenged the order of the Appellate Court before the High Court in a Constitution petition. The learned High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Appellate Court and restored that of the Rent Controller. It may be noted that the High Court also noticed that the respondent-landlord admitted that he will pay a sum of Rs,100,000 to the appellant-tenant, as cost of the superstructure. The High Court, therefore, directed that a sum of Rs,100,000 be deposited with the Rent Controller.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent in the eviction application had raised two pleas, namely, non-payment of rent and damage to the property. The learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue about the relationship of landlord and tenant. The denial by the appellant was not contumacious. The appellant has admitted that he was inducted as a tenant. The appellant raised a plea that the respondent had agreed to sell the property in question to him. About the payment of rent for the months of September to November 1989, the appellant in his written statement categorically stated that he had made the payment of rent to the respondent up to the month of December 1989. He did not admit that any default was committed by him. It is not disputed that a civil suit is pending in the Civil Court. In the circumstances of this case it was obligatory that issues about default and damage to the property should have been framed by the Rent Controller, so that the parties could adduce evidence in support of their respective pleas. It is not the case of the respondent that the parties were conscious of the actual dispute and they led evidence, therefore, it was not necessary to frame the issues. The Rent Controller has not recorded any finding that the appellant had made default in payment of rent or that he had damaged the property. There should have been a clear finding by the Rent Controller on the above points, but he as well as the High Court had not recorded any finding that the appellant had committed default or impaired value and utility of the building in question.
' This appeal is allowed; the order of the. High Court is set aside and that of the Additional District Judge dated 17-10-1991 is maintained. The Rent Controller is directed to complete the inquiry within three months on the basis of the evidence already recorded and any fresh evidence, if the parties wish to produce. There shall be no order as to costs.