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 No. 589 of 1978, decided on 23rd November 1978.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 30‑9‑1978 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in Writ Petition No. 4357 of 1978).
---S. 37‑Breach of terms of agreement‑Petitioner merely an allottee of land in dispute and his status merely that of a licensee under respondent‑‑‑Licence revocable on one month's ‑notice as laid down in agreement between parties‑‑Petitioner, held, could not legally challenge validity of notice served on him for his ejectment. [Agreement‑‑Notice].
Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd November 1978.
‑A plot of land measuring 12 marlas comprised in Killa No. 11/2 of Square No. 17 situated in village Buchaiki, Tehsil Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura belongs to the Provincial Government and its management is vested in the District Council Sheikhupura. It is stated that the petitioner has been in occupation of this plot under the District Council for the last seven years. In respect of the year 1976‑77 the plot was allotted to the petitioner by the District Council on the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 9th of August 1977 executed by him in favour of the District Council. It was agreed by the petitioner that he shall be liable to pay the annual rent at the rate of Rs. 60 per mensem, that the future yearly rent shall be payable in advance and that he shall be liable to ejectment on one month's notice served by the District Council. His allotment was also liable to be cancelled forthwith for any breach of the terms of the agreement. On the 31st of August 1978 the District Council served a notice on the petitioner alleging that he had failed to pay the rent for the year 1976‑77 in advance in spite of the notice and that he bad raised unauthorised construction on the site. He was therefore, directed to remove the superstructure and surrender vacant possession of the premises to the District Council within seven days.
The petitioner then challenged the validity of this notice served on him in writ jurisdiction mainly on the ground that under the said agreement of lease he was not liable to ejectment arbitrarily. But on the 30th of September 1978, a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner has therefore, filed this petition for special leave from the judgment of the High Court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the agreement dated 9th of August 1977 admittedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the District Council we have no hesitation in holding that he was merely an allottee of the plot of the land under the District Council and his status at best was that of a mere licensee under the respondent. The licence was evidently revocable on one month's notice as laid down in the agreement itself. In the circumstances; the petitioner could not in law challenge the validity of the notice thus served on him for his ejectment from the premises and the High Court has rightly refused to interfere in the matter. This petition has therefore, no force and is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer