IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.- This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against the judgment, dated 19.9.1995 of the Lahore High Court passed in S.A.O. No. 117 of 1995, arising out of an ejectment matter.
2. An ejectment petition was instituted before the Rent Controller by the respondents against the appellant on 16.3.1987. The learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment application on 10.5.1994.
The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 29.3.1995. S.A.O. No. 117 of 1995 was also dismissed by the learned Judge in Chambers through the judgment, dated 19.9.1995 under appeal, as below:- "5. Learned counsel for the appellant has neither been able to show that the Courts below have misread the evidence on record nor to point out any error of law in the judgments of the lower Courts. It is well-settled principle of law that ordinarily High Court is not competent to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below unless there is sufficient material to show that the Courts below had misread the evidence on record and the Courts have based their conclusion on extraneous considerations which are not borne out or established on the record."
3. Leave was granted to consider whether a building let out for non-residential purposes can be got vacated on the ground that it is needed by the landlord for residential purposes. Meanwhile, status quo with regard to possession during the pendency of the appeal was to be maintained.
4. Due to backlog of work load, leave was granted on 15.5.1996, though it was filed on 24.9.1995. It came up for final hearing today.
5. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties at length and perused the material available on record with their assistance. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the question on which the leave has been granted though raised in the ejectment petition and Issue No. 6 relevant thereto was also framed to the effect "whether the premises in dispute is being used by the respondent tor the purpose other than for which it was let out", nevertheless, the same plea was neither raised nor pressed at the the of hearing before the learned Judge in Chambers. This circumstances alone merits dismissal of appeal. When faced with this, Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellant, prayed for reasonable the for eviction of the premises in dispute. Mr. Mansoor-ul-Rehman Affidi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent/caveator on instructions from Muhammad Islam, respondent No. 2, agreed to the grant of one year the to the appellant to vacate the premises in dispute. This is also acceptable to the learned Advocate-on- Record for the appellant.
6. We are, therefore, inclined to grant a period of one year to the appellant to vacate the premises in dispute and hand over vacant possession thereof to the respondents without recourse to law by 28.2.2001. Upon failure to do so the appellant shall be liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute forthwith without notice and with police assistance. We further direct that the appellant shall continue to deposit agreed rent due before 15th of each succeeding month and in case of failure to make the deposit for two months, the consequences as to his immediate ejectment as detailed above, shall follow.
7. Before parting with this order we would like to observe that at the very outset, we had noticed that his matter took a beginning under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in the year 1987. It related to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties which, in its own turn, had come into existence about a quarter of a century back. This the was consumed on account of the legal technicalities and rules of procedure standing in the way of the parties as well as the Court to conclude the trial. It would be advantageous to quote from Hamoodur Rehman, C.J. In' the case of Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Year and another (PLD 1975 SC 678):-- "........ The principal object behind all legal formalities is to safeguard the paramount interest of justice--it cannot be denied that legal precepts were devised with a view to impart certainty, consistency and uniformity to administration of justice and to secure it against arbitrariness, errors of individual judgment and mala fide-The logic of words should yield to the logic of realities, particularly while dealing with adjustment of conflicting authorities."
8. Additionally, the status of the Rent Controller, the manner in which evidence is to be recorded and the importance of the process etc. To be issued to secure the presence of the witnesses and/or documentary evidence has been specially dealt with in the Rent Restriction Ordinance No. VI of 1959 with a view to shortening the litigation.
9. It has been held in a number of cases, the leading one being Khadim Mohy-ud-Din v. Ch. Rehmat Ali Nagra (PLD 1965 SC 459) that the proceedings before the Rent Controller are not in the strict sense judicial that evidence should be recorded in t he same manner as in a civil suit whereas the Rent Controller being persona designate is required to satisfy himself about the grounds in the ejectment petition and pass order in consonance with justice, therefore, as is being done in Sind Province, evidence in such cases should be ordered to be in the form of affidavits of witnesses of both the sides which should be tiled in the Court and in case any of parties wants to cross-examine him, the party producing his affidavit be directed to be responsible for his presence in Court for such purpose. It would not require the issuance of notices to the witnesses for appearance, for the party who had obtained the affidavit of such a witness would be bound to produce him in the Court of cross-examination and in case it fails to do so, It will be faced with the situation of his evidence not being read in the case.
10. It is deplorable that even the rent cases take years for finalization which tantamount to frustrating the ends of justice, it also gives rise to other situations disrupting the harmony amongst people. The Rent Controllers conduct the proceedings in ejectment matters as they are used to doing in the regular suits. As stated in the ease of Khadim Mohy- ud-Din (supra) these are not proceedings in the strict judicial sense. It is the satisfaction of the Rent Controller alone on the basis of material available on record to decide, whether or not an order of eviction is to be passed in a given case.
11. Unfortunately, the law declared by this Court in the case of Khadim Mohy-ud-Din (supra) has not been properly understood, appreciated and applied in proceedings, under the rent laws. It is, therefore, necessary in the interest of justice and to advance the cause of rent laws to state the guidelines with clarity and particularity as to the procedure that may be followed with immediate effect so that the evidence already recorded in the given cases should be made basis for the quick decision and for future it shall be regulated as follows:-
(1) Affidavits of not more than two witnesses in support of the ejectment application shall be tiled in the Court in addition to the affidavit of the petitioner himself in support of the contents of the ejectment petition.
(2) While replying to the ejectment application the respondent shall be similarly required to submit his own affidavit and affidavit of two other witnesses in support of his affidavit on the date fixed in the notice served upon him.
(3) The parties shall be bound to produce their witnesses for purpose of their respective cross- examination on the day fixed by the Court.
(4) A party obtaining the affidavits of the witnesses in support of his petition/reply would be bound to produce them in the Court for cross-examination and in case of its failure to do so their evidence shall be excluded from consideration.
(5) Appeals against the interim order of the Rent Controller and resort to Constitutional jurisdiction, against orders at intermediate stages arising out of the ejectment proceedings, should be discharged.
(6) The Court should take serious view of the situation when witnesses for cross-examination in support of their affidavits deliberately avoid/evade appearance in Court.
(7) Adjournment of ejectment petition should not be allowed except under unavoidable circumstances on an application moved by a party supported by affidavit, in such cases also adjournment should not be made for a period exceeding three days. Following the above procedure in ejectment matters appears to be necessary to achieve the goal of expeditious disposal of a case with a period of three months particularly in respect of residential tenements having regard to the decision unanimously taken in the Chief Justices' Committee Meeting held on 26.2.2000.
(8) There is need for organization and methodical arrangement of supervision and control by the High Courts over the functioning of the subordinate Courts which will be in accord with the decisions reached at the Chief Justices Committee Meeting held on 26.2,2000. The District and Sessions Judges of all Provinces would be responsible for the integrity and expeditious disposal of the cases and working of the subordinate Courts within their respective jurisdiction.
12. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Chief Justices of the Lahore High Court, High Court of Sind, Peshawar High Court and High Court of Baluchistan with a direction to send a copy each to the District and Sessions Judges of the Districts in their respective Provinces for bringing the contents thereof to the notice of all the Presiding Officers working under them, for compliance.
13. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above observations with no order as to costs.
APPENDIX Decisions of the Chief Justice Committee Meeting held on 26.2.2000.
Backlog and delays in quick dispensation of justice is a serious threat to the existing judicial system in the country concerted efforts are required by learned Judges at all levels, lawyers, litigant public, witnesses, prosecuting agencies, public leaders, media and the Executive to combat the menace by strengthening the system of administration of justice. In his judicial work a Judge shall take all steps to decide cases within the shortest the, controlling effectively efforts made to prevent early disposal of cases and make every endeavour to minimize suffering of litigants by deciding cases expeditiously through proper written judgments.
After due deliberations, in the Meeting of the Chief Justices Committee, presided over by Mr. Justice Irshad Hasan Khan Hon'ble, Chief of Pakistan, a strategy for clearance of the backlog, has been designed to help resolve the prob lem by implementing confidence building measures-short term measures for immediate action and long term measures by way of amendments in the existing laws and procedures, highlighted in the various reports of the Pakistan Law Commission.
The measures suggested by the Chief Justices' Committee are as follows:--
(1) Process for filling up the existing vacancies, in the prescribed manner, shall be initiated immediately. Process shall also be initiated tor increase in the strength of Judges in the subordinate judiciary, in a phased manner, after making adequate arrangements in regard to infrastructure facilities.
(2) Long term measures shall be taken for improving the administration of justice as has been highlighted in the comprehensive reports of the Pakistan Law Commission and, in particular, reports on Criminal Justice System (Report No. 22) as well as Juvenile Justice System (Report No. 30) and also as per observations made by Irshad Hasan Khan, J. (as he then was), now the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan, in the case of Sh. Liaquat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan (PSC 1999 SC
(Pak) 985), as to:-
(i) enhancing the strength and capacity of the system of administration of justice in the country to address and resolve the backlog crises; and
(ii) suggesting measures for inexpensive, expeditious and just disposition of cases.
Copies of the Pakistan Law Commission Reports and extract from the above judgment are being forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights for immediate consideration and implementation by the Government, so as to strengthen the system of administration of justice in the country and bring about reforms in procedural law/rules tor speedy justice.
(3) Special Benches shall he constituted in each High Court who will exclusively hear matters relating to collection of public revenues and hack dues/loans on day to day basis or as nearly as possible.
(4) Chief Justices of the High Courts shall nominate one or more Judges, tor a period of one month at a the, in rotation, to exclusively monitor the working and functioning of he subordinate Courts as well as the Courts established under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
(5) The Superior Courts have been working almost round the year including summer vacation, in a Full Court meeting convened to consider the backlog crises, the Supreme Court decided to continue to work for six weeks during summer vacation, so as to clear the backlog. This practice has also been in vogue in the High Courts.
(6) Chief Justices, in each High Court, shall also continue evolving a strategy for clearance of backlog in the High Courts as well as in the subordinate judiciary under their control.
(7) Meetings of the Chief Justices Committee shall be frequently convened tor review of backlog crises in the superior judiciary as well as in the lower judiciary and for other matters pertaining to improvement in the administration of justice.
(8) For the clearance of Backlog, the bench and the Bar, shall work in unison with a view to alleviate the sufferings of the litigant public.
(9) The Chief Justices should issue instructions to Judges of the subordinate Courts to be vigilant and effective by ensuring that investigations are quickly completed by the police and allans are timely submitted.
(10) District and Sessions Judges of all the tour Provinces should be responsible both for the integrity and expeditious disposal of the work of subordinate Courts within their jurisdiction. They shall submit monthly reports to their respective Chief Justices, who would keep posted the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan about the progress and for consideration of the said reports in the Chief Justices' Committee Meeting.
(11) Cases of widows, orphans suits tor Administration of the estate of the deceased persons(s) and other small disputes shall be disposed of within one month, after notice to the parties. Similarly, family disputes including cases of custody of minor, maintenance, dower, etc. Shall be disposed of at the latest by 31st May, 2000. Cases relating to ejectment from houses only shall be disposed of by 31st May, 2000.
(12) Notices in the above cases will be issued to the parties and their advocates within three days from the receipt of these instructions for accelerating the dates of hearing, if already fixed.
(13) Chief Justices of the Provinces may ask tor a list of pending cases of the categories mentioned above from the subordinate judiciary within 10 days.
(14) As regards the criminal cases, where the offences charges carry punishment not more than two years, these should also be taken up and disposed of within two months.
(15) Chief Justices of the High Courts to identify Judges in the subordinate judiciary, alleged to be corrupt, and thereafter initiate prescribed disciplinary proceedings against them in a fair and impartial manner, as per law/rules and in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
(16) Judges of the subordinate judiciary, who are alleged to be inefficient or are not punctual shall be provided an opportunity to improve their performance within three months, failing which the prescribed disciplinary proceedings shall also be taken against them.
(17) Chief Justices in each High (Court issued appropriate instructions to the subordinate judiciary for expeditious disposal of old cases and other categories of cases to be determined by them within a specified time.
(18) The Chief Justices of High Court shall call meeting of the District and Sessions Judges on Sunday, 27th February, 2000 at the principal seat, at Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta to ensure the implementation of the decisions of the Chief Justices' Committee.
(19) While granting or refusing bail the subordinate Courts shall keep in mind the relevant provisions of law as well as the established principles laid down by the superior Courts in granting or refusing bail in non-bailable offences, which inter alia, contemplate refusal of bail to accused, who is either a previous convict for an offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life or he is found by the Court to be a person who is hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or he is involved in any at of terrorism.
(20) Incentives in the form of Appreciation Certificates shall be given to subordinate Judges with excellent performance in the clearance of backlog.
(21.) Salaries of not only Judges of the subordinate Courts and their staff but even those of secretarial/personal staff, attached with the Judges of the Superi r Courts, are extremely low. This seriously impairs administration of justice at all and needs to be remedied at the earliest by the Government. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.