Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 690 of 1976, decided on 19th March, 1979.

--O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2--Injunction-Petitioners acknowledging respondent as transferee of property and paying him rent for several years-Petitioners raising dispute only after filing form for transfer of property, such property being not available for transfer under law-Prima facie, petitioners, held, possessed no right to challenge transfer order issued in favour of respondent and no ground existed for issuance of temporary injunction -[Injunction].

Azilzullah Jung v. Ismail and another 1969 S C M R 684 ref.

Nemo for Appellants.

H. M. Naqvi for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 19th March 1979.

On 18-3-1979 the question of stay came up for consideration before me. After going through the petition as well as orders I found that the case could be decided on the question of prima facie locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the transfer of the property made in favour of respondent No. 1. I directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to argue the revision petition .but he submitted that he was not prepared. It was, therefore, directed that the revision petition shall be heard on 19-3-1979.

2. I have waited for the learned counsel for about an hour. The case was also called. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. I have gone through the record again.

3. The facts are that the petitioners filed a suit to challenge the transfer of property No. S-64-R-40, New Anarkali, Lahore which was transferred to respondent No. 1 by the Settlement Department. It is admitted in the plaint that petitioner No. I and Mian Ghulam Mohammad, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 executed a rent note in favour of respondent No. 1 after the transfer in his favour and they had been paying rent to him upto the year 1966. After Scheme No. VIII was promulgated under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act, 1958, the petitioners submitted a form for transfer of this-very property but that form was rejected on account of the property being not available for transfer. Respondent No. 1 on the other hand applied for ejectment of the petitioners before the Rent Controller. It was for this reason that the petitioners filed a suit to challenge the transfer made in favour of respondent No. 1.

4. The petitioners filed an application for temporary injunction to restrain the said respondent from ejecting them from the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit but the application was dismissed on 16-6-1975 on the ground that they had failed to prove that they had a prima facie case in their favour. The petitioners' appeal against that order was dismissed on 20-5-1976. Hence this revision petition.

5. It is clear that petitioner No. 1 and the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 had acknowledged respondent No. 1 as transferee of the property, which he undoubtedly was, and had been paying rent to him for several years. The dispute was raised by them only after they filed Form VIII for transfer of the property which was not available for transfer according to law and to which Scheme under which the said form was pled, was not applicable. In these circumstances prima facie the petitioners have no right to challenge the transfer order made in favour of respondent No. 1. It was held in Azizullah Jung v. Ismail and another (1969 S C M R 684) that properties which already stand disposed of are not available for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII and that the persons in possession cannot now impugn the legality of the transfer already made to lay claim to them under that Scheme. In view of this authoritative pronouncement of their Lordships the petitioners have prima facie no case.

6. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.

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.