Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 989 of 1976, decided on 17th February, 1979.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated the 22nd‑ of September, 1976, in S. A. O. No. 316 of 1970).

S. 13 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30‑Eviction of tenants of evacuee premises‑Notice‑Service‑All petitioners sons of allottee of premises and themselves admitting to have been living as one family and not being in possession of separate portions of property in question Notice sent to one of such occupants, held, sufficient for purposes of S. 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and not necessary to have sent separate notices to petitioners or to have filed separate petitions for ejectment.

Ch. Inayat Ullah, Advocate and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑off‑Record for Petitioners.

S. Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Senior Advocate and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 17th February 1979.

‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the petitioners under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.

The facts briefly are that S. Sayed Hussain, the father of the five peti tioners, was in occupation of residential property No. SW‑101‑R‑45, Sanda Road, Krishan Nagar, Lahore. This property was transferred to respondent Syed Saghir Hussain who served S. Syed Hussain with a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, who sent a reply (Exh. P. 1) to the same. S. Sayed Hussain died and the property devolved on his five sons, the petitioners in the present petition. Saghir Hussain thereupon sent separate notices to the petitioners, but only three of them, namely, Aslam Hussain, Hamid Hussain and Ali Abbas were served. Subsequently Saghir Hussain filed an application for ejectment under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent. It was decided in his favour by the Rent Controller vide judgment dated the 24th of December, 1969. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore on the 8th of July,‑ 1970. Their second appeal (S. A. O. No. 316/70) in the High Court was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Hence the present petition for special leave to appeal.

The two grounds urged by the petitioners' counsel before us are :‑

(i) that all the five petitioners were independent allottees, in occupa tion of the separate portions of the property in question, therefore, separate notices should have been sent to them but the respondent bad sent notices only to Syed Aslam Hussain, Syed Hamid Hussain and Syed Ali Abbas. It was contended that he bad failed to send notices to Syed Zaigham Hussain and Syed Mohammad Abbas : (ii) that for the same reason the respondent should have filed separate applications for ejectment against each of the five petitioners.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and considered the aforementioned contentions in the light of the material on record and documents Exhs. P. 1, P. 2 and P. 3 which were read out before us by Mr. Jamil Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondents. It appears that Syed Zaigbam Hussain and Syed Mohammad Abbas were not served as they resided outside Lahore, but the remaining petitioners sent replies to the notices. A reading of replies (Exhs. P. 1, P. 2 and P. 3) clearly shows that the position taken up by the petitioners at that time was that they were not in occupation of separate portions but were in joint possession as one family. As already mentioned all the five petitioners are the sons of S. Syed Hussain, the allottee of the premises. They had themselves admitted that they were living as one family and were not in possession of separate portions of the property in question. Notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act had been sent to S. Sayed Hussain. As such it was not necessary to send separate notices to the petitioners or to have filed five separate petitions for ejectment. The learned Judge of the High Court has considered and repelled the above‑noted contentions in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his judgment. We are in full agreement with the view taken by him. Consequently, the petition is dismissed as being without any merit.

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.