' C.M. No,1584-C of 1994.
' Through this application the appellant has prayed for impleading heirs of Muhammad Din, who according to him was the landlord. It is argued that the petitioner was tenant of Muhammad Din brother of the present respondent and predecessor of the applicants, therefore, they may be impleaded.
2. On the other hand, it is argued that the petition is mala fide. It is submitted that one of the applicants had appeared as P. W.1 and the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant was decided on the basis of evidence available on record.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments. The applicants, if genuinely felt, should have moved the applications before the Rent Controller or atleast before the Appellate Authority.
The application is clearly mala fide and misconceived, therefore, dismissed.
' C.M. No,431-C of 1997.
4. This is an application for production of copy of the judgment of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhelum, dated 22-3-1995. It is argued that in the judgment the Deputy Settlement Commissioner it has been explained that the shop was transferred to Soofi Muhammad Din while one room and open plot of the same property was transferred to the respondent, who was brother of the said Muhammad Din, therefore, this document is necessary for the decision of the preliminary issue of relationship.
5. On the other hand, it is argued that the document is irrelevant for the purpose of controversy.
This is to be seen in the light of pleading of the parties and evidence on record.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments. The issue was framed as per pleading of the parties and the same has to be proved in accordance with the evidence. None of the parties can be allowed to prove case other than set up in its pleadings. The respondent has clearly pleaded in the ejectment petition that he left out the shop to the appellant, therefore, the controversy that who is Owner is irrelevant.
' This application is dismissed. MAIN CASE .
8. The respondent filed an ejectment petition from a shop situated in Jehlum. The appellant contested the same and pleaded that he is tenant of late brother of the respondent. The Trial Court framed issue as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent appeared as A.W.1. The appellant in rebuttal examined Mehfooz Begum as R.W.1 and himself appeared as R.W.2. The parties were making contradictory claims, which were to clear from the evidence on record, therefore, the Court examined Wali Dad as C.W. The Rent Controller after hearing the arguments decided the issue in favour of the appellant vide order, dated 6-6-1991. The respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was accepted by the impugned order, dated 6-11-1993. The result was that the ejectment petition was accepted and the appellant was given 30 days to vacate the shop. Now this second appeal.
9. I have heard the argument at some length and gone through the record. It has transpired that the respondent did not append with the ejectment petition any site plan of the property in dispute.
The parties have produced a number of documents contradicting each other. The admitted fact is that one shop was transferred to the respondent and the other to his brother Muhammad Din. The dispute all the way is of identity of the properties transferred to two brother. In the absence of any site plan, the ejectment order cannot be executed. The identity has not been established clearly by any of the parties.
10. I do not want to make any comments to the evidence both oral and documentary on record, lest it should prejudice case of the either party. In this view of the matter this appeals is accepted.
The impugned order of the Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Controller are set aside. The result is that the ejectment petition would be deemed pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jehlum. The respondent may amend the ejectment petition and submit site plan of the property claimed by him and also produce other documents as deemed necessary. Similarly, the appellant side would also be at liberty to file fresh reply to the ejectment petition and produce relevant documents of all sorts. Thereafter, the parties shall be given opportunity to produce further evidence, if any, and the petition shall be decided afresh in accordance with law.
11. This petition is pending since April, 1986, therefore, the learned Senior Civil Judge is directed to decide the matter expeditiously in any case by 30th of June, 1998.
12. There will be no order as to costs.