Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 457 of 1973, decided on 12th June 1974.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 8th October 1973, in S. A. O. No. 3 of 1973).

‑‑ S. 13 read with S. 9 and Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 30 & 36‑Provisions of S. 30‑Not hedged in by any condition and have overriding effect notwithstanding any other law to contrary‑Lawful for transferee to charge rent on basis of "latest assessment carried out by a municipality or a local authority"‑Increase in rent on basis of latest assessment‑Does not require Rent Controller's approval under S. 9, Ordinance VI of 1959.

The first proviso to subsection (1) of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act expressly makes it lawful for the transferee of the property to charge rent on the basis of the "latest assessment carried out by a Municipality or a local authority." The provi sions of the section are not hedged in by any further condition that the increase in rent should also have the approval of the Rent Controller before it becomes chargeable by the landlord.

Ahmad Khan v. Sakina Bibi 1969 S C M R 435 ref.

Manzoor Hussain Sial, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 12th June 1974.

‑This leave petition is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 8‑IC‑1973 and raises the question whether a landlord who is a transferee of property under Act XXVIII of 1958 can charge rent on the basis of the latest assessment by a Municipal Committee or a local authority without having recourse to the provisions of section 9 of West Pakistan Ordinance VI of 1959. The learned Judge answered the question in the affirmative, against which the tenant now seeks leave to appeal.

Muhammad Munir, the respondent herein and two others were trans ferred by the Settlement Authorities, the premises in dispute. A joint P.T.O. was issued in their favour and they gave notice to the petitioner, who admittedly was in possession of the shop prior to its transfer in their favour. Later the other two co‑transferees, transferred their respective shares in the premises to Muhammad Munir respondent. Subsequent to the transfer in his favour by the other two transferees, the respondent gave a fresh notice under section 30 of 195 Act to the appellant, claiming rent at the rate of Rs. 150 p.m. in accordance with the latest assessment. On appeal by the appellant. the assessed rent was reduced to Rs. 80 p.m. On the petitioner's failure to make the payment, the respondent applied under section 13 of the 1959 Ordinance for the ejectment of the petitioner. The petitioner raised a number of preliminary objections about the competency of the application of eject ment. These were overruled by order dated 4‑6‑1972 and the petitioner was directed to deposit arrears of rent from 4‑10‑1968 to 13‑6‑1972 at the rate of Rs. 80 p.m.

An appeal petitioner against the order requiring him to deposit the arrears of rent as aforesaid was dismissed by tire District Judge on 13‑12‑1972. It appears that the only point agitated before the learned District Judge was that no valid notice under section 30 of the 1958 Act was issued to the petitioner. The learned District Judge found that the last notice dated 6‑7‑1968 (Exh. D.1) issued by the respondent was perfectly valid.

In the High Court the petitioner raised a new point namely that the respondent‑landlord cannot charge rent on the basis of the latest assessment unless the requirement of section 9 of Ordinance VI of 1959 is satisfied. The section provides inter alia that a landlord can increase the rent "subject to the approval of the Controller" even if such increase be in consequence of a fresh rate, cess or tax levied in respect of a rented promises, provided that the increase in the rent shall in no case exceed one‑half of the existing rate of rent. The learned Single Judge repelled the objection taken by the petitioner on the ground that the relationship between the parties is entirely governed by section 30 of 1968 Act, which, by virtue of section 36 ibid shall have overriding effect notwithstanding any other law to the contrary. The first proviso to subsection (1) of section 30 expressly makes it lawful for the transferee of the property to charge rent on the basis of the "latest assessment carried out by a Municipality or a local authority". The provision of the section are not hedged by any further condition that the increase in rent should also have the approval of the Rent Controller before it becomes chargeable by the landlord. In reaching that conclusion, the learned Single Judge relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ahmad Khan v. Sakina Bibi (1969SCMR435). The view taken by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable:

Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.

Petition 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.