SAYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J.- Respondents Nos. 3 to 13 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance for eviction of the petitioner from a house, covering an area of 5 marlas, on the ground of default in payment of rent. The ejectment petition was resisted on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and that the petitioner was allegedly in possession of property as owner. The ejectment petition was firstly allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 27.4.1991. In was set aside and case was remanded by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat on 29.9.1992. In post-remand proceedings, the learned Rent Controller directed eviction of petitioner vide order dated 28.4.1993.
2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal which-was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 22.3.1995.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. One of the legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Additional District Judge did not examine the witnesses himself nor recorded findings supported with independent reasons. It was argued that tenancy was denied, petitioner claimed counter ownership in the property and tenancy was claimed on the basis of oral evidence but this was not looked into by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents maintained that there was no need to re-appraise the evidence in post- remand proceedings and that the appeal was without merit.
4. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have been taken through the evidence on record.
5. From the record, it is discernible that relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the petitioner, on the ground that he was never inducted into premises as tenant and that he was allottee of the premises. The ejectment was initially allowed but in appeal case was remanded for its decision afresh. In post- remand proceedings, learned Rent Controller considered the oral as well as documentary evidence and concluded that relationship of landlord and tenant did exist, In appeal, learned Additional District Judge attended to other questions but did not re-appraise the evidence. It is a settled rule that the Appellate Authority shall consider the reasons recorded by the learned Rent Controller, re-appraise the evidence on record and record findings supported by independent reasons. It was a case in which there was no written tenancy between the parties. The respondents claimed that plot was owned by them who raised construction and inducted the petitioner therein as tenant while the petitioner alleged that he was transferee of plot by virtue of allotment order which was not admitted by the other side. It was necessary for the Appellate Authority to re-appraise the entire evidence to satisfy if the tenancy was proved on the basis of oral evidence. Without attending to the evidence, learned Additional District Judge could not affirm the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller. Reference has also been made to Exh. R-1 and R-2 to show that petitioner was tenant of the respondents. These two documents possibly did not create any tenancy as the same pertains to allotment of the property. The tenancy was not claimed on the basis of documents referred above but it was claimed on the basis of oral evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, the order passed, without appraising evidence cannot sustain in law.
6. For the reasons above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside, with the result that the appeal filed by the petitioner would be deemed pending which will be decided afresh by the learned Additional District Judge by recording a judgment supported by independent reasons. Appeal should be decided within four months, with intimation to the learned Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.