Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MAHMOOD VS Respondent: KARAM KHAN
1988 M L D 1578
1988 M L D 1578
[Karachi]
Before Abdul Razzak A.Thahim, J
MAHMOOD and 4 others‑‑Appellants
versus
KARAM KHAN and another‑‑Respondent
First Rent Appeals Nos.146 and 147 of 1983, decided on 31st January, 1988,
Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑--
‑‑‑Ss.15 & 21‑‑Application for ejectment‑‑Evidence‑‑Rent Controller consolidating three cases and disposing of same but failed to record separately evidence in each case on each issue‑‑Order of Rent Controller set aside and case remanded for recording evidence afresh in each case and for decision according to merits and law‑‑Evidence of one case, held, could not be considered in another case.
Ashiq Ali Abdullah for Appellants.
Manohar Lai for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 31st January, 1988.
JUDGMENT
These two connected appeals arise against the order dated 6‑1‑1983, by which the Rent Controller has decided three Rent Cases bearing Nos.2938, 2939 and 2940 of 1908, by a Single Judge. I have heard Mr.Ashiq Ali and Mr.Manoher Lal at length. Finally, it was pointed out that all the three cases were consolidated and evidence in all the three cases was not separately recorded. It has also been pointed out that. in one Rent Case No.2938 of 1968, appeal has not been filed against the order by the appellant and it is stated by Mr.Ashiq Ali that Syed Karam Khan has died. There are number of points which are yet to be decided such as that while deciding the preliminary issues, the Rent Controller has also decided the default and according to MrAshiq Ali no evidence was adduced from the appellants' side on the question of default. Therefore, this finding on the preliminary issues which were not framed is not in accordance with the law. l also refer to the cases reported in P L J 1975 (Kar.) 507; P L D 1953 (Lah.) 321 and P L D 1976 (Lah.) 1446; and F.R.A. 767 of 1984, where it has been held that evidence of one case cannot be considered in another case. The contention of the learned counsel is that the evidence in each case on each issue was to be recorded separately which has not been done in these cases. In these circumstances, without going into the merits of the cases, I set aside the impugned order and remand the cases back to the Rent Controller, who after hearing the learned counsel record the fresh evidence in each case and decide according to merits ands law within three months as cases are old. By this order, both these appeals arc disposed of with no order as to cost.
M.Y.H./M‑506/K Case remanded.