ADAM LIMITED, KARACHI Versus ARIF

1. This Rent Appeal has been filed by the tenant. The landlord/respondent sought ejectment of tenant/appellant on the grounds of default and personal bona fide need. The appellant resisted both these grounds in the written‑statement. The learned Rent Controller on both grounds allowed the rent application, hence this appeal.

2. Mr. Abul Inam, Advocate for the appellant assailed the impugned order stating that the order is not sustainable on evidence. While going through the evidence the record reveals that the examination‑in‑chief of the parties through their affidavit‑in‑evidence were signed before Oath Commissioner. Normally, the affidavits for immediate use in Court are to be sworn in either in the Court or before the officer authorised by Court to administer oath. The deposition/ cross‑examination was recorded without administration of Oath. The record reveals that the parties were not recalled nor re‑affirmed, as such legal evidence was not recorded. Since on the face of record evidence is not legally recorded, there is no other course available with me but to remand the case to the Trial Court for recording proper legal evidence and thereafter, base the findings on such legally recorded findings.

3. Since this rent case was filed in 1988 the Trial Court is directed to record the evidence and pass the appropriate orders within six months. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 14‑4‑1997. Office is also directed to return the R & P as soon as possible.

4. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since the order is passed on the legal grounds, therefore, there will be no order as to costs.

5. A.A./A‑166/K Appeal allowed.