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. 194 of 1972, decided on 6th July 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 16th November 1971, in Second Appeal Order No. 456 of 1970).
S. 13 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30‑Occupant of evacuee house served with notice under S. 30 of Act XXVIII of 1958, by its trans feree‑Despite notice occupant failing to pay rent to transferee- Ejectment ordered by Controller.‑Contention that occupant .was under bona fide impression that property was evacuee trust property---No rent ever paid by him to trust as well -Ejectment, in circumstances, held, rightly ordered by Controller.
Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rahnaan Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 6th July 1972.
WAHHEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑
The dispute between the parties is in respect of shop No. U/1254, Dingi Khoi, Raja Bazar, Rawalpindi. This shop, along with other property, was trans ferred to the respondent by the Settlement authorities. After the transfer, the respondent, on the 17th March 1966, served a notice on the petitioner under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner did not pay the rent. Thereupon, the respondent filed an applica tion for eviction against the petitioner. The petitioner contested the ejectment application and stated that he had been labouring under the bona fide impression that the respondent was not the transferee of the disputed shop and that in fact, it belonged to an evacuee trust known as Gurdawara Damdama Sahib. This point was decided by the Lahore High Court in Settlement Appeal No. 37 of 1971. It was held that the property in dispute was a part of the compensation pool, and not evacuee trust property and the same had been rightly transferred to the respondent. The contention of the petitioner that he was not the tenant of the respondent thus disappeared. The learned Rent Controller decided the ejectment application against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on the 26th November 1970. The petitioner then filed a second appeal which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 16th November 1971. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
Mr. Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the property in dispute belonged to Gurdawara Damdama Sahib and, therefore, he did not pay the rent to the respondent. If that is so, the petitioner should have paid the rent to the Gurdawara Trust. He failed to do so. It ‑is , thus quite clear that the petitioner is in default and the learned' Rent Controller was perfectly justified in ordering the eviction of the petitioner. It is now settled by the judgment of the High Court'', in Settlement Appeal No. 37 of 1971 that the property in dispute is a part of compensation pool and it was rightly transferred to the respondent. The petitioner therefore, is the tenant of the respondent.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the order of the petitioner's eviction has been rightly passed. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is 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