GHULAM QADIR Versus JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MURREE
The respondent No.l, in this writ petition, filed an application for ejectment of the writ petitioner, on 26‑2‑1984, before the learned Rent Controller at Pasroor from a shop situated in the Main Bazar Chawinda, Tehsil Pasroor, District Sialkot on the grounds of default as to the payment of rent, personal need and damage to the shop. The petitioner contested the application by denying the grounds as set out in the ejectment application and alleging the want of a notice under Section 13‑A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 7‑4‑1985 ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the grounds of default and personal need.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the learned Rent Controller filed an appeal which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. The learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 16‑7‑1985 upheld the judgment of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Additional District Judge as required in law has not himself discussed the evidence while disposing of the appeal. He has simply felt contented in respect with his finding by saying that the learned Rent Controller has discussed the evidence of both the parties at length while giving finding thereto, then to conclude the same, it has been added that he has rightly observed. The learned Additional District Judge was sitting as an Appellate Court it was his duty to have weighed the entire evidence himself with reference to the arguments addressed to him. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge as it stands is not a judgment in the eye of law.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has in reply submitted that no exception can be taken to the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge so as to declare that as without lawful authorithy being a judgment of an authority having the exclusive jurisdiction and if the judgement lacks the discussion in detail as to the evidence then this Court may view the evidence in order to see that whether the order of ejectment as passed by the Rent Controller is justified on the record. If so, then the writ petition merits dismissal.
5. The judgment as delivered by the learned Additional Districts Judge has been looked into. The learned Additional District Judge has not discussed the evidence in his own turn and has dispensed with the same by saying that the learned Rent Controller has discussed the evidence of both the parties at length while giving his findings and the learned Rent Controller has given cogent reasons for deciding the issues. It is not a case of an unsatisfactory discussion of the evidence but it is a case where the evidence has not at all been discussed qua the points raised by the petitioner before him and the reasons do not flow therefrom. As to the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.l that this Court may view the evidence suffice it to say that an appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken in a constitutional petition. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is liable to be regarded as without lawful authority as it is not in proper disposal of the appeal and as such is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned District Judge, Sialkot for decision afresh on the appeal within one month from the receipt of this order after discussing the evidence himself as an appellate Court consistent with the requisite of a judgment.
6. This is being made clear that this Court should not be understood to have taken any exception to the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge which this Court will preferably not do as the District Judge happens to have an exclusive jurisdiction in the matter with finality attached to his decision. It is only to the manner in which the impugned judgment has been delivered. This writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs.
A.A./M‑423/L Case remanded.