1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal to challenge the propriety of an order of remand passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan in a second appeal.
2. The said second appeal arose in the following circumstances :- The petitioner instituted a suit against the respondents for recovery of arrears of house rent on the ground that the latter were his monthly tenants on the basis of an agreement in writing for a period of one year and 8 months from 1st of Falgun, 1358 B. S. At a monthly rental of Rs.
26. The arrears claimed were for the period Sraban, 1365 B. S. To Sraban, 1368 B. S. The defendants admitted the agreement but alleged that the rent was only Rs. 12 per month and further that the tenancy was frustrated as the hut was destroyed by fire within the period of the lease. Thereafter, the petitioner did not re-erect the hut in spite of demands. The respondents erected a chappra at their own expense and have been carrying on their business therein for 7/8 years.
3. On these pleadings one of the issues raised was as to whether the Province of East Pakistan was a necessary party to the suit. The trial Court held that the Government was not a necessary party and decreed the suit. On appeal, this decision was upheld by a learned Subordinate Judge of Noakhali by a rather unsatis--factory judgment. The appellate Court did not at all consider the question as to whether the Government of East Pakistan was a necessary party or not. In the circumstances, the High Court, in second appeal, took the view that the lower Courts had failed to consider an important question which appeared to be covered by a decision of this Court in the case of the Province of East Pakistan v. The Secretary, Muktagacha Abbasia Senior Madrassa (PLD 1964 SC 401).
4. The High Court also felt that the question as to whether the petitioner was a rent-receiver or not within the meaning of section 2(23) of the Act of 1950, needed consideration in view of the decision of the High Court itself in the case of Aminbag Co-operative Market Society Ltd. v. The Province of East Pakistan (PLD 1967 Dacca 128).
5. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on its behalf that since this point was considered and decided by the trial Court, the remand was wholly unnecessary.
6. It appears that the trial Court disposed of the issue relating to the question as to whether the Province of East Pakistan was a necessary party by just saying that it was not. None of the decisions referred to above were considered nor was any other cogent reason given. The appellate Court did not even touch this point. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree that the remand order was either illegal or without jurisdiction, as this issue necessarily involved the taking of further evidence which normally the High Court does not do at the second appeal stage.
7. This petition is, -accordingly, without any substance and is dismissed.