Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal from Original Order No. 244 of 1974, decided on 17^th January, 1982.

‑-- O. VII, r. 7 read with S. 151 and Displaced Persons (Compen sation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30 ‑Ejectment proceedings ‑ Cause of action ‑ Purchaser from transferee of evacuee shop serving notice on tenant (occupant) under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30 ‑Purchaser filing ejectment petition against tenant on grounds of default, requirement for personal use and reconstruction before expiry of 3 months‑Rent Controller dismissing ejectment petition as being premature although six years passed since service of notice ‑ Additional District Judge concurring and dismissing appeal ‑ Both Rent Controller and Additional District Judge finding landlord's requirement for bona fide use and for reconstruction Held, fresh ejectment application on basis of bona fide personal requirement and reconstruction would result in nothing but loss of time, energy and expense.

Mst. Amina Begum v. Ghulam Dastgir P L D 1978 S C 220 fol.

Amjad Khan for Appellant.

A. R. Arshad for Respondent.

Dates of hearing : 16th and 17th January, 1982.

The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, dated the 16th July; 1974, dismissing the appellant's appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Sialkot, dated the 19th December, 1973, whereby the appellant's application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for securing eviction of the respondent from shop No. 20/524, situate in Bazar Kalan of Sialkot was dismissed may be briefly stated as follows. The aforesaid shop, which was evacuee property, was finally transferred to one Abdul Ghani vide permanent transfer deed dated the 2nd January, 1963, Exh. P. 3. On the 27th June, 1963, Muhammad Anwar, appellant, purchased the shop from Abdul Ghani vide registered sale‑deed, Exh. P. 2. The shop was in possession of Muhammad Ayub, respondent, who bad executed a lease deed, Exh. P. 1, on the 24th December, 1962, in favour of Abdul Ghani. On the 12th July, 1963, the appellant served upon the respondent the notice of demand of rent, Exh. P. 17 under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. On the 7th October, 1963, the appellant filed application with the learned Rent Controller seeking the respondent's ejectment from the shop on the grounds that the latter had defaulted in paying rent and that the former required it for personal use and reconstruction. The respondent contested the applica tion. Though the learned Rent Controller recorded a finding to the effect that the appellant required the shop in good faith for his person also and for reconstruction yet he held that the applica tion was premature inasmuch as the period of three months had not yet elapsed since giving of notice of demand of rent by the appellant to the respondent before he resorted to the action and that the respondent could not be made to vacate the shop for per sonal use and reconstruction by the appellant before the expiry of six years of serving of notice upon him. Therefore, he dismissed the application. The findings of the learned Rent Controller were endorsed in appeal preferred by the appellant by the learned Additional District Judge who dismissed the appeal on the 16th July, 1974. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has come up in further appeal to this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant candidly conceded that the respondent could not be said to be a defaulter in payment of rent because the time limit of three months set by section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, had not yet expired when the appellant initiated action against him. However, he contended that on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mst. Amina Begum v. Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978SC220 the appellant's appli cation should be accepted because by then a period of more than six years had passed since the appellant served notice under section 30 of the Act upon the respondent and the learned Rent Controller as also the learned Additional District Judge ‑had found the appellant to require the shop for his bona fide need' and for recons truction. As observed by the Supreme Court a fresh exercise by means of another application for ejectment on the basis of bona fide personal requirement and reconstruction would result in nothing but loss of time, energy and expense. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he could not subscribe to the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court. This in itself is no reason to for not following the decision of that Court which under Article 189 of the Constitution is binding on this Court. Therefore, keeping in view the rule laid dawn by the Supreme Court, in the aforementioned judgment this appeal is accepted, the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller and of the learned Addi tional District Judge are set aside the appellant's application is accepted and the respondent is directed to put the appellant in possession of the building of the shop in dispute. The respondent is given four months' time to vacate the possession of the shop. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.