1. ' In these three applications (C.M.As. Nos.610/96, 836/96 and 279/97) the appellant has prayed that he may be allowed to bring on record the following documents by way of additional evidence.
(1) Judgment and decree, dated 30-5-1996 passed in Suit No,3880 of 1992 by 1II-Senior Civil Judge Karachi Central.
(2) Copies of plaint filed by the appellant and written-statement filed by the respondent in Suit No,579 of 1995 in this Court.
(3) Certified copy of Judgment, dated 24-4-1997 passed in Civil Appeal No,17 of 1996 by District Judge Karachi Central.
2. ' In the supporting affidavit the appellant has stated, inter alia, that the documents sought to be produced now are necessary in the interest of justice to come to a just conclusion and to do justice between the parties. Counter-affidavit were filed by the respondent. His main objections are that now these applications have been moved to delay the final disposal of this appeal and to create confusion. Furthermore, these applications are not maintainable in law and facts and the documents sought to be produced now have no relevancy with the issue involved in this case.
3. ' During the course of arguments on the main appeal I also heard arguments on these three applications and I have also perused the record.
4. ' Briefly stated the facts which form background of the matter are that the appellant filed ejectment application on 1-7-1981 against the respondent wherein he claimed ownership of House No,R-143, Block 15 F.B. Area Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property) consisting of two stories and were let out to the respondent as tenant at the monthly rent of Rs,1,500 out of which Rs,800 was the rent for the ground floor and Rs,700 for the 1st floor. He further alleged that the respondent committed default in payment of rent w,e,f, 1-7-1978, therefore, he was liable to be evicted. The respondent in the reply stated that the appellant had agreed to sell the disputed house to the respondent for a total consideration of Rs,55,000 and on or about 7 January 1976 an agreement to sell was executed between the parties whereby a sum of Rs,33,000 were paid towards part payment of sale consideration and the balance was to be paid in instalments of Rs,250 per month. It was also the case of the respondent that in furtherance of the said agreement to sell he was put in possession of the disputed house. On the basis of that rent agreement to sell he also filed Suit No,3880 of 1982 for specific performance of said agreement, dated 7-1-1976.
5. During the trial ,the learned Trial Court framed issues and after perusal of evidence led by both the parties and hearing as came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and consequently rent application was dismissed vide the impugned order. Now at this stage the question is whether keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case and in exercise of its powers under section 21(b) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance XVII of 1979 this Court may allow the appellants request for bringing the documents on record by way of additional evidence.
6. ' Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Suit No,3880 of 1982 filed by the respondent against the appellant for the specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed by the learned III-Senior Civil Judge Karachi Central on 3-11-1991, however, the appellant preferred Appeal No,1 of 1992 which was allowed by this Court on 12-11-1995 and the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court for fresh decision on each and every issue and accordingly the suit after remand was dismissed again by the learned Trial Court on 30-5-1996 (after filing of the instant appeal). Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the first dismissal Order is part of record having been filed alongwith affidavit-in-evidence. He further contended that the appeal preferred by the respondent was also dismissed while copies of plaint and written-statement in Suit No,597 of 1995 are also relevant as they pertains to the disputed property and that suit is still pending adjudication in this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent while opposing the applications submitted that the documents now sought to brought on record by way of additional evidence is an attempt by the appellant to fill in the gaps and lacunas which cannot be allowed at this stage. Furthermore the respondent has challenged the findings of the learned subordinate Courts in Suit No,3880 of 1982 and Appeal No,17 of 1996 in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. That revision has not been admitted so far but even then the matter shall be treated as sub judice.
7. Therefore, this Court should, not give any weight to the certified copies of judgments of the subordinate Courts while hearing this rent appeal which is to be decided in accordance with the provisions contained in section 21 of Ordinance XVII of 1979 and the existing record. In support of his submission he cited Mst. Umari and another v. Faqir Muhammad and another PLD 1983 Lahore 349, Syed Muhammad Saleem v. Ashfaque Ahmad Khan and another 1989 CLC 1883 and Dr. M. Murtaza Hussain v. Muhammad Mustafa PLD 1980 Karachi 199.
8. ' After having carefully examined the record, I find that the law laid down in the above cited judgments is not attracted to the point involved in the matter under consideration. The nature of documents sought to be produced is such that they are relevant for making further enquiry in order to come to a just and proper conclusion. They pertain to the same subject-matter and between the same parties. Therefore, in the interest of justice these three applications are allowed as prayed.