Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 82 of 1980, decided on 12th February, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 2‑10‑79 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in S. A. O. No. 222/79).

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑

‑‑‑ Ss. 13(6) 8t 15 read with West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act (VII of 1956), S. 11‑‑‑Rent Controller passing order on 28‑6‑1976 for deposit of monthly rent and arrears of rent but later, property in dispute having been requisitioned by Provincial Government on 9‑3‑77; dismissing ejectment application on 7‑12‑77‑District Judge on appeal of landlord holding that order of requisition passed pending ejectment proceedings was without jurisdiction‑Meanwhile, Rent Controller, thereupon striking off defence of tenant on 17‑6‑78 for non‑compliance of his order dated 28‑6‑76‑Contention that after dismissal of ejectment application by Rent Controller, order passed by him under S. 13(6) of Ordinance for deposit of future monthly rent bad lapsed‑Held without force and that no exception can be taken to orders of High Court maintaining order of ejectment, in circumstances of case.

Mead Tufail v. Province of Punjab and 5 others P L D 1978 Lah 78 ref

M. A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on. Record for Petitioner

M. Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 12th February, 1980.

SHAH, J

: The respondent moved an application for ejectment of

the petitioner from the building occupied by a Government Managed School, namely, Shah Jehan Girls Model School, Lahore, on the ground of personal need and default in the payment of rent. He claimed Rs. 200 as monthly rent of the building in dispute. The Rent Control passed an order on 28‑6‑1976 under section 13(6) for deposit of monthly rent of Rs. 200 and Rs. 6,515 towards the arrears of rent up to 15‑7‑1976. It appears that this

order was not complied with, in accordance with it terms, instead the building was requisitioned by the Government of Punjab under section 11 of Act VII of 1956 by its order dated 9‑3‑1977. In view of the requisitioning order, the Rent Controller dismissed the respondent's application by his order dated 7‑12‑1977 on the ground. that after requisition of the property by the petitioner, the ejectment application of the respondent had become infructuous because the respondent was no longer competent to eject the petitioner from the requisitioned property. The respondent's appeal against the said order of the Rent Controller was, however, accepted by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, by big order dated 27‑5‑1978 relying upon Mohammad Tufail v. Province of Punjab and 5 others (P L la 1978 Lah. 78) wherein it was held that an order of requisition passed in these circumstances is without jurisdiction. Against the appellate order the respondent filed a Second Appeal (S.A.O. 499/78) in the High Court, which was ultimately dismissed on 9‑I‑1979.

In the meanwhile, the Rent Controller struck off the defence of the petitioner by his order dated 17‑6‑1978 on the basis that his first order dated 28‑6‑1976 had not been complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order of ejectment dated 17‑6‑1978 made by the Rent Controller by filing an appeal before the Additional District Judge, which was dismissed on 5‑3‑1979. He then moved Second Appeal (S.A.O. 222/79) which, too was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 2‑10‑1979. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.

The plea taken in the High Court by the petitioner has been repeated before us, namely, that after the dismissal of the ejectment petition on 7‑12‑1977 by the Rent Controller, the order made by him under section 13(6) for the deposit of future monthly rent had lapsed. Since the Rent Controller did not make a fresh order for the deposit of rent after the setting aside of the order of dismissal of application on 17‑6‑1978 and‑ the remand of the case to him, the petitioner could not be ejected on the ground of non‑compliance with the order of the Rent Controller.

There is no force in this contention because as pointed out by the High Court the requisition of the property took place on 9‑3‑1977 and the ejectment application was dismissed on 7‑12‑1977. However, the default of compliance with the order of the Rent Controller passed on 28‑8‑1976 had occurred earlier to 7‑12‑1977. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the orders passed by the High Court and this petition must fail and is dismissed hereby.

However, since the premises in dispute is housing an educational institution we would allow the petitioner to continue in possession until 30‑4‑1980, provided be continues to pay the monthly rent, and is directed to hand over its possession to the respondent on 1‑5‑1980,

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.