Find a Lawyer

First Appeal from Order No. 82 of 1962, decided on 7th February 1968.

Act 0171 of 1956), S. 6(1)(e)(i)‑Compensa tion‑Section 6(l)(e) requires arbitrator to take certain factors into consideration bent does not restrict him to taking into consideration only rent prevalent before 1st January 1939 Arbitrator to fix rent at reasonable amount keeping in view rent of 1939, so as to be in proportion to rise in prices, etc. between 1939, and date of requisition‑Rent of building, requisitioned in 1956, being Rs. 75.00 p.m. in 1939, but rent of similar buildings in 1957, being Rs. 169.00 p.m.‑Rent at Rs. 169.00 p.m. held, fair compensation being neither arbitrary nor unreasonable increase on that of 1939.

Maxwell on "Interpretation of Statutes", pp. 193 and 275 ref.

Sh. Mahboob Elahi for Appellant.

S. M. Bashir A. A.‑G. and A. S. Hashmi for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 7th February 1968.

Flat No. 12‑A of Dyal Singh Mansions, the Mall Lahore, was requisitioned by the Government of West Pakistan under the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, for the use of the Ministry of Broadcasting and Information, Government of Pakistan, in the year 1956. This flat is admittedly owned by Dyal Singh College Trust Society, a charitable institution, responsible, inter alias, for running a degree college at Lahore. Since the compensation for its use and occupation could not be fixed by agreement between the parties the Government assessed the rent at Rs. 75.00 per month exclusive of taxes and the usual annual repairs. Aggrieved by this assessment of land the Dyal Singh College Trust Society moved the District Judge, Lahore in his capacity under section 6 of the West Pakistan Requisition as an arbitrator In of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act VII of 1956 for enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 169.00 per month. This application was contested by the Provincial Government and the learned Arbitrator framed the following issues :‑

(1) What is the fair compensation of the requisitioned property

(2) Relief.

The learned Arbitrator gave an award on 2nd June 1962, fixing the compensation at Rs. 75.00 per month and left the parties to bear their own costs. The Dyal Singh College Trust Society has come up in appeal to this Court which shall be disposed of by this judgment.

2. The learned Arbitrator (District Judge) has based his decision on an interpretation of section 6 (1) (e) (i) of the aforesaid Act. The relevant section runs as follows:--

"6 (1). Where any building is requisitioned, there shall be paid to the owner compensation for its use and occupation, and the amount thereof shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out :‑

(e) The arbitrator in making his award shall take into consideration the following factors‑

(i) in the case of a building which was in existence before the 1st January 1939, the rent of the same or a similar accommoda tion in similar circumstances prevailing in the locality during 12 months prior to the 1st January 1939.

He came to the conclusion that since admittedly the rent during the 12 months prior to the 1st January 1939 was Rs. 75.00 per mensem he could not under the aforesaid provisions of law fix the compensation to be paid by Government to the Trust at a sum other than Rs. 75.00 per month.

3. 1 have heard learned counsel for the Parties and have come to the conclusion that the interpretation placed upon the aforesaid provision of law by the learned Arbitrator is not correct. Clause (e), which has been reproduced above, only requires the arbitrator to take certain factors into consideration. In case of a building which was in existence before the 1st of January 1939, sub‑clause (i), quoted above, requires him to take into consideration the rent of that building or of similar accommodation prevailing during 12 months prior to the 1st of January 1939. It does not restrict the arbitrator to taking into consideration only the rent referred to above. All that is required is that while fixing the rent he shall not omit from consideration the rate of rent prevalent in the period mentioned aforesaid. It has been observed in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes at page 275‑

"Statutes which encroach on the rights of the subject, whether as regards person or property, are similarly subject to a article construction in the sense before explained. It is a recognised rule that they should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect such rights."

and at page 2‑

"If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous no more is necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense, the words themselves in such case best declaring the intention of the Legislature."

This Act came into force in the year 1956 and it cannot be said that the Government wanted to acquire property for its us from owners and deprive them of a fair compensation. If they Wanted to do so, it was not difficult for the Legislature to have Worded clause (e) as follows :‑-

"The arbitrator in making his award shall take into consideration o4ly the following factors."

The word "only" is not to be found in the section as it was enacted and the inference that can be drawn from it is that the Legislature wanted the Arbitrator to fix the rent at a reason able amount keeping in view the rent of 1939 so that it was in proportion to the rise in prices, etc. between 1939 and the date on which the property was being requisitioned. Maxwell has observed at page 193 of the aforesaid book that:‑

" Whenever the language of the Legislature admits of two constructions and, if construed in one way, would lead to obvious injustice, the Courts act upon the view that such a result could not have been intended, unless the intention had been manifested in express words."

The learned Arbitrator (District Judge) erred in law in holding otherwise.

4. The rent of the property in dispute was Rs. 75.00 in the year 1939. We have it on record in the shape of testimony given by P.W.1 Mr. Iqbal Hussain, Assistant Secretary of the Trust, that the rent of the flat was Rs. 112 50 in the year 1944 and Rs. 169.00 in 1959. He has further stated that the flats of the same size in that building were rented out at Rs 200,00 per month in the Year 1961. The flat consists of three living rooms, a verandah, a courtyard, a bath room and a kitchen. Mr. Muhammad Ajaib. Assistant in the Services and General Administration Department, who appeared as R. W. 1 on behalf of the Provincial Government conceded that he had seen the Dyad Singh Mansions which were situated at the Mall, Lahore, that the flat who situated in the best locality in Lahore and was very near the High Court. He also conceded that the flat was situated in the business centre at the Mall. No evidence was produced by the opposite side to rebut the averments made by the witness appearing for the Trust that similar flats were fetching Rs. 200.bo per month in 1961 and Rs. 169.00 in 1957. I, therefore, find no reason to deprive the Trust of a fair com pensation in respect of the property in dispute. Keeping in view the fact that the rent of the property in dispute during 12 months prior to 1st January 1939, was Rs. 75.00 per month I find that a rent of Rs. 169.00 per month in the year 1956 is neither arbitrary nor an unreasonable increase on that of the 1939 rent.

5. I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Arbitrator (District Judge) and direct that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 169.00 per month as rent to the appellant from the date from which the property in dispute, was requisitioned. I further direct the respondent to poly the costs of the appellant throughout. The fee of counsel appearing for the appellant is fixed at Rs. 1,000.00 in this Court and Rs. 1,000.00 before the learned Arbitrator.

A.E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.