Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal from Order No. 392 of 1967, heard on 25th June 1970.

S. 13 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30‑Mere fact that amount of rent demanded by landlord, in notice under S. 30 of Act XXVIII, excessive does not render notice invalid.

Mian Rehmat Ali v. Khadija Begum P L D 1967 Lah. 29 ref.

S. 13 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30 and Settlement Scheme No. III, Ch IV, para. 10 & para. 19(b) of Terms and Conditions of Auction‑Contention that person purchasing big mansion at auction under Settlement Scheme No. III could get only P. T. D. and not a P. T. O. and any person holding P. T. O. in respect of such property could not be a landlord for purpose of S. 30 of Act XXVIII of 1958 and no ejectment application under Ordinance VI of 1959 competent‑Held : where payment of full purchase price deferred, a P. T. O. could validly be issued and he would be a landlord within meaning of S. 30 of Act XXVIII of 1958 and for purpose of ejectment application under Ordinance VI of 1959.

A big mansion was disposed of by public auction under Settlement Scheme No. III and a P. T. O. was issued in favour of D, an associate of auction‑purchaser. D, after obtaining P. T. O. put in application for ejectment of the occupant of the property under section 13 of Ordinance VI of 1959. On the basis of the language of para. 10 of the Settlement Scheme No. III it was contended that a P. T. O. could not have been legally issued in respect of big mansion purchased at auction and hence D was not a transferee of property nor could he move application for ejectment under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.

Held: Apart from the fact that the words used in Para graph 10, Chapter IV of Settlement Scheme No. III do not exclude the power to pass a Provisional Transfer Order, since a person who has an authority to pass a Permanent Transfer Order has certainly the lesser power of transferring it provisionally, the other provisions of the Scheme do not support the argument. Para graph 10 provides that the order of transfer is to follow the payment by the auction‑purchaser of the amounts payable by him in accordance with the terms and conditions of auction. Paragraph 13 of Part V of the said terms and conditions lays down that if the highest bid accepted is that of a claimant he would be entitled to the benefit of deferred payment as well as to the facility of making payment in instalments.

Held further: A person is entitled to get possession of the pro perty under Paragraph 18(ii) and (iii). Paragraph 19(b) of Part VIII of these terms lays down that "where payment of purchase money has been deferred either wholly or in part the property will be provisionally transferred to the purchaser. There is therefore, full legal backing for the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order. Such a person would become the landlord of the pro perty and the provisions of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, would become applicable to the case.

Abdul Majeed Akhgar for Appellant.

Sh. Aftab Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 25th June 1970.

Doctor Inzarul Islam Qureshi filed two applications under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordi nance, 1959, for the ejectment of Mazhar Ali Azhar, appellant in S. A. O. No. 392 of 1967 and Abdullah & Sons appellant in S. A. O. No. 393 of 1967 from the southern portion of the pro perty, known as Balwant Mansion and described in the Taxation Record as No. S‑37‑R‑114(B), Beadon Road, Lahore. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default in the payment of rent and an allegation that the tenants were impairing the value of the property. Since the points involved in the appeals are the same, they shall be disposed of by this order.

2. The tenants raised several objections which included an attack on the validity of the notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the absence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Rent Controller framed the following preliminary issues :‑

In the case against Mazhar Ali Azhar‑

(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. If not, what is its effect O. P. R.

(2) Whether a valid notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was served upon the respondent O. P. P.

In the case against Abdullah & Sons‑

(1) Whether the present petition is not maintainable O. R.

(2) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties O. P. P.

(3) Whether the notice served upon the respondent complied with the provision of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1958 O. P.

These‑issues w‑.re found against the tenants and in favour of the landlord wherefore by orders, dated 3rd January 1967, the tenants were required to deposit the arrears of rent and as well as to continue to pay future rent as and when it fell due.

3. The tenants felt aggrieved by it and filed appeals which were dismissed by Mr. Masud Ahmad Ansari, Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 25‑10‑1967. Hence these second appeals.

4. The notices are alleged to be invalid on the ground that the amount of rent demanded through them was more than the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, entitled the landlord to accept. It is submitted that the notices were, therefore, not in accordance with law and should be treated as nullity.

5. This submission holds no water because it has already been held by this Court in Mian Rehmat Ali v. Khadija Begum (P L D 1967 Lah. 29) that‑

"there is nothing in section 30 which invalidates the notice, because of the rent demanded in it is excessive."

6. Settlement Scheme No. III deals with the disposal of big mansions and hotels by unrestricted public auction. In the present case, the auction was held on 29th June 1060. The entire mansion known as Balwant Mansion was purchased in that auction by Sardar Muhammad Rafiq. The same was confirmed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 25th July 1960. The auction‑purchaser entered into an agreement of association with Dr. Inzarul Islam Qureshi respondent whereby the complete southern half portion of the building, as described in the Agree ment of Association, was to be transferred to Dr. Inzarul Islam Qureshi. Each party had to pay Rs. 2,82,500 to the department as the price of the property falling to his share. This Deed of Association was executed on 5th July 1962. A Provisional Transfer Order was duly issued to Dr. Inzarul Islam Qureshi on 7th September 1962 by the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Industries) Lahore. It has been contended that a P. T. O. cannot legally be issued for a big mansion wherefore Dr. Inzarul Islam Qureshi has not become the transferee of the property in dispute, and the application for ejectment did not lie. This submission is based upon Paragraph 10, Chapter IV, of Settlement Scheme No. III which deals with the disposal of big mansions and hotels by unrestricted public auction. This Paragraph runs as follows :‑

"When the Chief Settlement Commissioner has accepted the bid and the amounts payable by the auction‑purchaser have been paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of auction, the Chief Settlement Commissioner will pass an order transferring the auctioned property to the purchaser."

7. Apart from the fact that the words used in this para graph do not exclude the power to pass a Provisional Transfer order, since a person who has an authority to pass Permanent Transfer Order has certainly the lesser power of transferring it provisionally, the other provisions of the Scheme do not support the argument of learned counsel for the appellants. Paragraph 10 provides that the order of transfer is to follow the payment by the auction‑purchaser of the amounts payable by him in accordance with the terms and conditions of auction. Para graph 13 of Part V of the said terms and conditions lays down that if the highest bid accepted is that of a claimant he would be entitled to the benefit of deferred payment as well as to the facility of making payment in instalments. Paragraph 18(ii) and (iii) of Part VII of these terms runs as follows :‑

"18. After the acceptance of the bid, the possession of the property will be given to the purchaser:

(i)

(ii) on payment of the first instalment where the price is payable in instalments after the adjustment of deferred pay ment ;

(iii) on acceptance of the offer by the Chief Settlement Commissioner where the amount is covered by deferred pay ment."

The Deed of Association, clearly recites that Dr. Inzarul Islam Qureshi is a claimant and owns a Compensation Book. He would, therefore, be entitled to the benefit of deferred payment as well as instalments. He was, therefore, further entitled to get possession of the property under Paragraph 18(ii) and (W) quoted above. Paragraph 19(b) of Part VIII of these terms lays down that "where payment of purchase money has been deferred either wholly or in part the property will be pro visionally transferred to the purchaser".

8. There is, therefore, full legal backing for the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order to Dr. Inzarul Islam Qureshi who was a claimant and entitled to the benefit of deferred payment of the auction price. Dr. Inzarul Islam Qureshi, therefore, did become the landlord of the property in dispute, and the provisions of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, became applicable to the case.

9. The Provisional Transfer Order was issued in pursuance of and in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the Deed of Association, referred to above, which clearly provided that Dr. Inzarul Islam Qureshi shall get the full southern half portion of the property in dispute. The mere fact, that this portion was not specified in the Provisional Transfer Order, would not make any difference.

10. The appeals have, therefore, no force and are dismissed with costs.

K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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