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. 150 of 1972, decided on 23rd June 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 9th May 1972, in S. A. O. No. 86 of 4972).
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958),
Sched.‑Transfer of house to S‑M, the occupant of house and tenant of S by operation of law could not challenge validity of order of transfer in favour of S before Courts save by way of writ petition.
S. A. Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 23rd June 1972.
The petitioner is a tenant, and the respondent applied for the eviction of the former on the ground of default in payment of rent. The respondent is a transferee and although he served a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, on the petitioner the latter failed to pay or tender rent within three months of the service of notice. The petitioner raised preliminary issues challenging the identity of the property transferred to the respondent and the service of the notice upon the petitioner. Both the issues were found against the petitioner. Thereafter considering the case on merits the Controller passed the impugned order dated 5‑10‑1971, under section 13(6) of the Rent Restric tion Ordinance directing the petitioner "to deposit Rs.2,200 as arrears of rent till 3‑10‑1969 and Rs. 2,400 from 3‑10‑190 to 3‑10‑1971". The amount was ordered to be deposited on or before 5‑11‑1971. There was also an order to deposit future rent from 3‑10‑1971 onwards at the rate of Rs.100 p.m. before the 15th of each succeeding month. On appeal by the petitioner the learned Additional District Judge upheld the order of the Rent Controller but extended the time for the deposit of arrears till 25‑3‑1972. In the 2nd appeal before the High Court the main question for consideration was the identity of the property. The High Court on a consideration of the evidence including the evidence of a son of the petitioner himself and documentary evidence concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge and held that the property was the same that had been transferred to the respondent and had been in his possession. The second appeal was consequently dismissed.
The validity of the order of transfer in favour of the respon dent could not be challenged before the Courts. It could only have been done on a writ petition before the High Court.
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.
This petition 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