' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by the predecessor of the petitioners seeking eviction of respondents Nos.1 and 2 from a plot of rented land situated at Samundari Road, Faisalabad on the ground of personal need and that the respondent No,1 has sublet the rented land to respondent No,2.
2. The application was contested by respondents Nos.1 and 2 by filing a written reply in which the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:--
(i) Whether the petitioners have not served notice to the respondent under section 13-A of Rent Restriction Ordinance? OPR
(ii) Whether application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR
(iii) Whether respondent has sublet the disputed property to some other person? OPR
(iv) Whether petitioners need disputed premises for their personal use in good faith? OPA
(v) Relief.
3. On the basis of the evidence led before him, the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 25- 7-1989 held that the landlords have successfully proved that the rented land was required by them for their own use as they wanted to step up a foundry over the plot. The issue relating to subletting was decided against the landlords. Aggrieved by that order, respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge who reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issue No,4, and dismissed the petition for ejectment.
4. Mr. Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued with great vehemence that the learned Additional District Judge while reversing the findings of the learned Rent Controller has gone by consideration which were totally irrelevant and has also acted in defiance of the law declared by the superior Courts. It was explained by the learned counsel that the main reason for non-suiting the petitioners was that they being agriculturists could not carry on the business of foundry. The learned counsel has relied upon Mst. Toheed Khanam v. Muhammad Shamshad (1980 SCM R 593), Ghulam Dastgir v. Muhammad Zakria Javed and others (1987 SCM R 796), National Travels v. Abdul Qayyum and another (1988 SCM R 261) and Province of Punjab and 4 others v. The Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (1988 SCM R 1515).
5. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, has defended the impugned order by contending that the landlords have failed to prove their bona fide need especially when it stands proved on the record that they have already sold certain other plots of land situated in the same area. The learned counsel also objected to the maintainability of this petition by arguing that the petitioners should have availed of the remedy by filing second appeal under section 15(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
6. Taking up the second objection first, I do not see any merit in it. Section 15(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 provides second appeal from the order of the Rent Controller in case of "non-residential building" and not rented land. It will be appreciated that the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 deals with three types of properties, namely, `residential buildings' non- residential buildings' and 'rented lands' which have been separately defined in section 2(d), (f) and (g). It is an admitted position that what was rented out by the petitioners to respondents Nos.1 and 2 was a plot of land for the purpose of business and, therefore, the same would clearly fall within the definition of rented land in which case no right of second appeal has been conferred.
7. So far as the merits are concerned, it will be seen that the Rent Controller had after appraising the evidence held that the landlords had successfully proved that they require the rented land for their own use. While coming to this conclusion he had relied upon the statement of Abdul Ghani, one of the landlords, who appeared as A.W.3. Unfortunately, the learned Additional District Judge while reversing the findings of the Rent Controller did not advert to the reasons which prevailed with him in taking a contrary view. Additionally from the perusal of the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge, it is evident that the main reason which prevailed with him for holding that issue No,4 does not stand proved was that the landlords being agriculturists could not run a foundry. This approach on the part of the learned Additional District Judge is contrary to law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to the effect that it is neither for the Rent Controller nor for the tenant to determine as to what vocation of life should the landlord carry on. He is the best Judge of his choice in that respect. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to National Travels v. Abdul Qayyum and another (1988 SCM R 261) and Province of Punjab and 4 others v. The Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (1988 SCM R 1515). The Additional District Judge also did not take into account the provisions of section 13(4) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 while dismissing the ejectment petition. It follows from the above discussion that the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge is not in accordance with law and, therefore, cannot be sustained.
7-A. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has stated that with the passage of time the position has undergone change especially in view of the death of some of the original landlords and this aspect of the matter may also be examined.
8. Since, however, I propose to remand the appeal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the learned Additional District Judge for decision afresh, the request to that effect may be made to the appellate Court which shall dispose it of in accordance with law.
9. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Additional District Judge dated 7-11-1991 is declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the appeal filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 against the order of the Rent Controller shall be deemed to be pending before the District Court and shall be decided afresh.
' The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad on 1-12-1994 who may either hear the appeal himself or entrust the same to some other Additional District Judge who shall proceed to decide the same within two months. No order as to costs.