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. 12 of 1956, decided on 23rd April 1956.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16th March 1956, and order dated 7th February 1956 of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, in Writ Petition No. 127/55).
S. 8 (2) (b) read with Rule 6, Pakistan Rehabilitation Rules, 1S'SI Stunmary ejectment of unauthorised person in absence of show cause notice.‑Illegal.
In a case in which it is not suggested that the person summarily ejected from evacuee property under section 8 (.2) (b) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance (XIX of 1948), had broken any of the conditions of allotment or was otherwise an unsuitable person, and the ejectment was supposed to have been ordered only on the ground of such person being in unauthorised possession of evacuee property, a show, cause notice under Rule 6 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Rules, 1951 is necessary.
Where there was no such notice, ejectment was illegal and the order, for a writ of mandamus directing restoration, of possession was upheld by the Supreme Court.
A. R. Changez, Advocate‑General of West Pakistan (Mushtaq Hussain Khan, Advocate,
Supreme Court, with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Petitioners.
Respondent : Not represented.
Date of hearing: 23rd April 1956.
‑‑This is a petition by a Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner and an Assistant Reha bilitation Commissioner for special leave to appeal from the judgment of a Division Court of the Karachi Bench of the West Pakistan High Court by which a writ of mandamus was issued to the petitioners directing them to restore the posses sions of a flat to the respondent. The fiat in question was evacuee property and the petitioner was in possession of it under certain arrangement entered into between him and the evacuee before his migration and not objected to by the Custodian.
Without specifying the authority under which he was acting the first petitioner who is a Rent Controller as well as an Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner had the respondent summarily ejected from the flat. The High Court has found that such ejectment could only be ordered after a show cause notice was issued to the respondent and that since no such notice was issued, the ejectment was illegal. In this petition it is contended on 'behalf of the petitioners that under rule 6 of the Rehabilitation Rules notice is necessary only where the possession of the person sought to be ejected is unauthoris ed unifier section 8 (2) (b) of the Rehabilitation Ordinance. It is, however, common ground that the flat in question was an abandoned building and that the respondent's possession had not been authorized by any Rehabilitation authority. The respondent was, therefore, an unauthorized person within the meaning of Rule 6 and could not be ejected without a show cause notice. In the proceedings taken it is nowhere stated that the respondent had broken any of the conditions of the allotment or that he was otherwise an unsuitable person to occupy the flat. Thus the only justification for the ejectment could be the first of the three grounds contemplated by section 8 (2) (b) of the Rehabilitation Ordinance to which Rule 6 is clearly applicable. And if the ejectment was not under section 8 at all the ejectment was unauthorized as apart from that section no power is shown to have vested In either of the petitioners to eject the respondent summarily.
We see no force in this petition and dismiss it.
A. H. Petition dismissed,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer