Find a Lawyer

-----S. 30 read with Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑Statutory tenants, protection of effect of repeal‑Statutory tenant of evacuee property claiming protection under S. 30 after repeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act‑Held, such tenant cannot claim protection after repeal of Act.‑[Interpretation of statutes].

S. .A. O. No. 615 of 1978 fol.

Muhammad Ramzan v. Ch. Bashir Ahmad 1979 S C M R 340 rel.

Nemo for Petitioner.

Ch. Rafique Ahmad Sabir for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 24th October, 1981.

This writ petition calls in question an order of ejectment passed against the. petitioner in consequence of an application made by respondent No. 1, Mehraj Din, hereinafter referred to as the respondent. Before submitting the instant petition, .the petitioner had preferred a second appeal, namely, S. A. O. No. 322 of 1980 challenging the order of his eviction. The only ground pressed by him in the petition in hand as well as the appeal was that since he was a statutory tenant by virtue of the provisions of section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 he could not be thrown out of the disputed premises before the expiration of six years of the service of notice as contemplated by the said provisions of law. After the repeal of the said Act by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, a Division Bench of this Court was asked to decide the question whether after the repeal of the said Act, six years' protection could be claimed by a statutory tenant. The aforesaid S. A. O. was also directed to be heard alongwith S. A. O. No. 615 of 1978 in which the aforementioned question had been raised. The view expressed by the learned Division Bench was that as a result of the repeal of the sat Act, the statutory tenants could not claim protection of six years. The S. A. O. filed by the petitioner was, therefore, dismissed on 5th May 1981. Thereafter, the respondent made C. M. No. 2 of 1981 praying that since the only question raised in 'the instant writ petition was the same which had been decided against the petitioned in the S. A. O. filed by him, this writ petition may also be dismissed. Notice of the C. M. was given to the petitioner and his counsel for today b t they have not turned up to contest the C. M.

2. I have gone through the writ petition before me and find that the only plea raised therein was that the petitioner was entitled to the protection of six years as laid down in section 30 of the said Act. This plea had, however, not found favour with the aforementioned Division Bench of this Court and I am bound to follow the vie taken by the said Bench, especially when a similar, view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Ramzan v. Ch. Bashir Ahmad (1979 S C M 'R 340), I, therefore, accept the C. M. referred to above and dismiss the wt petition on the ground that the point agitated therein has no force. There shall be no order as to costs.

K. M. A. 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.