1. F.R.As. Nos.85 of 1996 and 97 of 1996 are disposed of through this order as parties, facts, properties and case-law involved are one and same. Brief facts of the matter are that respondent filed application under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred as 'the Ordinance'), being Rent Cases Nos.758 of 1992 and 759 of 1992 against the appellants, hereinafter referred as 'opponents', before the Rent Controller. The learned 1st Rent Controller, Karachi East, was pleased to allow the applications and 60 days' time was granted to the appellants for handing over peaceful possession of the remises to the respondent, hereinafter referred as 'applicant' vide Judgment dated 30-1-1996. The appellants filed First Rent Appeal bearing No.85 of 1995 and 97 of 1996. After filing of the rent cases, written-statement on behalf of the appellants were filed in the trial Court and the trial Court recorded evidence of Mir Ghulam Hussain attorney and husband of Mrs. Shereen Hasan, the respondent as Exh.A/1 and produced documents showing academic qualification of her daughter Nelofar Hasan as Exhs.A/2 to A/8 and also submitted approved plan as Exhs.A/9 and A/10 and photographs of the shop as Exh.A/11. The affidavit-in-evidence of Nelofar Hasan, daughter of the applicant was filed, attorney of the applicant and witness were cross- examined by the learned counsel for the other side on behalf of the opponents. Affidavit-in- evidence of Abdul Rauf as Exh. O/ 1 was filed alongwith tenancy agreement as Exh.0/2 and affidavit-in-evidence of Muhammad Anwar Saigal opponent witness as Exh.0/4, affidavit-in- evidence of opponent's witness Fasihullah Shaikh as Exh.0/3. These witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the appellant closed the side on behalf of the opponent on 17-11-1995.
2. Learned trial Court framed the following points for determination:
(1) Whether the applicant requires the premises in question bonafidely for use of her daughter Nilofar for establishing clinic?
(2) Whether the opponent has created as nuisance and has encroached upon the footpath beside infringed the terms and conditions of the agreement by impairing the material utility and value of the premises?
(3) What should the order be?
3. The learned Rent Controller allowed the applications by common Judgment referred hereinabove.
4. Hence they have approached this Court. Pre-admission notice was issued.
5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Amin Lakhani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arif Hussain Khiljee, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. I have gone through the material placed with these rent appeals. Admittedly learned trial Court by accepting plea of bona fide personal use of the demised premises, granted the applications by common judgment but strangely enough the trial Court in the judgment has neither cited : - spondent Tariq Siddiq of Rent Case No.759/92 as an opponent nor learned trial Court has mentioned the fact of submission of affidavit-in-evidence on behalf to 'Tariq Siddiq, the same is not even discussed by the learned trial Court in the judgment which is a glaring mistake on the face of it which requires immediate rectification.
7. Consequently the Judgment is set aside.
8. R & P may be sent to the learned trial Court for passing judgment afresh particularly showing Tariq Saddiq as opponent and discussing the affidavit-in-evidence filed on his behalf.
9. The trial Court is required to announce the judgment within a period of 30 days with notice to the parties.
10. The appeals stand disposed of.
11. Consequently Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos.255 of 1996 and 214 of 1996 are dismissed as having become infructuous