ISRAR AHMAD Versus ABDUL AZIZ

This appeal has been filed by the tenant challenging the orders dated 31-10-1983 and 24-11-1983 passed by the learned Vth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi. On 21-1-1982, Rent Case No.271 of 1982 was filed by the respondent Abdul Aziz for the ejectment of appellant Israr Ahmed on the ground of default and personal requirement. A written statement was filed by the appellant in which he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to the appellant, he was the tenant of one Ahmad Ali Khan and was paying rent to him at the rate of Rs.75 per month, and after the death of Ahmed Ali Khan, rent was being paid by the appellant to the widow of Ahmed Ali Khan. It was also pleaded that no notice under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was received by the appellant from the respondent. Five issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller and issue No.l was whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Evidence of the parties was recorded and after hearing arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, orders were passed by the Rent Controller disposing of the Rent Case.

2. The original record of Rent Case No.271 of 1982 is before me. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that two orders were passed on the same date, i.e. 31-10-1983, and in both the orders there is discussion about the cases of the parties, the evidence led on their behalf and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of their respective clients. I have, perused the record. There are two orders. In both orders dated 31-10-1983, all the five issues have been decided. On issue No. 1 in one of the two orders dated 31-10-1983, the finding is that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties, whereas in the other order, also of the same date i.e. 31-10-1983, the decision on issue No.l by the same Rent Controller is that the respondent is the landlord of the premises in question and the appellant is his tenant. There is no explanation on the record as to why two orders appear, both dated 31-10-1983, and both passed by the same Rent Controller disposing of one ejectment case.

Thereafter an application for review was filed by the respondent. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the application for review was filed in respect of that order dated 31-10-1983 in which on issue No.1 the decision of the Rent Controller was that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. It is further submitted by Mr.A.R. Siddiqui, learned .counsel for the respondent, that respondent was not aware of the other order dated 31-10-1983 passed by the same learned Rent Controller, in which, on issue No.l it had been decided that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. By order dated 24-11-1983, the same Rent Controller reviewed her decision on issue No.l in respect of that order in which it had been held earlier by her that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. However, even in the order dated 24-11-1983, no reference is made about two orders .having been passed by the learned Rent Controller on 31-10-1983. It appears that on 24-11-1983 the Rent Controller was herself not aware that she had passed two orders disposing of the same rent case. The conduct of the Rent Controller in this is beyond comprehension. Both the orders dated 31-10-1983 run into 9 pages. Then one order does not appear to be a copy of the other. It appears that two separate orders were dictated or written by the Rent Controller and then signed by her.

3. In this matter it cannot be said that justice has been done between the parties and that the case has been decided in accordance with law by the learned Rent Controller. In my view the best course to adopt in this matter is to set aside all the three orders of the Rent Controller i.e. two orders dated 31-10-1983 and the order dated 24-11-1983, and remand the case for fresh decision by another .Rent Controller.

4. F.R.A. No.971 of 1982 is allowed and both the orders dated 31-10-1983 and the order dated 24-11-1983 of the Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi passed in Rent Case No.271 of 1982 are set aside. There will however, be no order as to costs.

The record may be sent to the learned District Judge Karachi who may assign the rent case to some other Rent Controller for decision. In View of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that it will be open to the parties to lead any additional evidence if they s desire. Mr. A.R. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent, state that the respondent is being greatly prejudiced on account of delay in disposal of this case. It is directed that the Rent Controller, to whom this case is assigned, will dispose of the case by 30-9-1985.

A copy of this order will be sent to the Rent Controller who had passed the orders dated 31-10-1983.

A.A.

Appeal accepted.