Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 242 of 1968, decided on 21st October 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 25th March 1968, in Writ Petition No. 199‑R of 1968).
S. 2 (12)‑Words "within the premises of an industrial concern"‑Necessarily mean within area of premises actually being used as industrial concern‑Rooms from pre Partition time used as separate shop rooms never used for purposes of industrial concern‑Settlement Authorities held, correct in holding that such rooms did not form part of industrial concern.
Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 21st October 1968.
‑The dispute in this case relates to three rooms attached to an industrial concern, namely, a flour mill. The authorities transferred these rooms treating them to be shops to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein but the industrial concern was transferred to the petitioner. The petitioner having failed to get this order varied by the Settlement authorities, ultimately invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of West Pakistan, but a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the same on the ground that the finding of the Settlement authorities with regard to the said rooms was that they never formed part of the industrial concern. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court and it is contended on his behalf that even though the finding as regards these rooms was a finding of fact, a question arose as to whether these rooms could at all be treated as shops within the meaning of subsection (12) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
It is contended that under this clause any room or any evacuee business premises "situated within the premises of an industrial concern or a building or premises declared under paragraph 15 of the Schedule to be a big mansion or hotel." It is argued that since these shops were attached or appurtenant to an industrial concern, they should have been treated within the industrial concern and as such could not be treated as a shop.
We are unable to accept this interpretation. Within the premises of an industrial concern' must necessarily mean within the area of the premises actually being used as an industrial concern.
In the present case the evidence was that these three rooms were from before Partition being used as separate shop rooms not for any of the purposes of the flour mill. Hence it cannot be said that the finding of the Settlement authorities that these rooms did not fall within the industrial concern transferred to the petitioner was in any way wrong.
This petition is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed.
Leave refused,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer