Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 534 of 1982, decided on 16th June, 1982.

(From the judgment dated 17‑5‑1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in S. A. O. No. 493/1979).

‑S. 13‑Eviction proceedings‑P. T. O., challenge to‑Validity or correctness of Provisional Transfer Order issued by Rehabilitation Authority‑Held, cannot be gone into by Rent Controller in eviction proceedings and Rent Controller bound to act and proceed upon such P. T. O. when same neither cancelled nor its operation suspended.

Sched.‑Permanent Transfer Deed issued pursuant to decision of High Court in a writ petition but such decision set aside and writ petition itself dismissed‑P. T. D., held, lost its efficacy even if not formally cancelled.

Syed Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 16th June, 1982.

‑This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding brought by respondent Kh. Muhammad Iqbal Butt against the petitioner Society from two rooms of a double‑storeyed building bearing property No. 1/910 situate at Katchery Road, Sialkot City. The respondent's case was that a P. T. O. had issued in his favour on 24‑4‑1961, whereby the double‑storeyed building had been transferred to him, that he had served notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and that a challenge to the transfer had been set at rest by the High Court in L. P. A. No. 177 of 1965, decided on 31‑3‑1970 (reported in P L D 1971 Lah. 1) between the present parties, which decision had been upheld by the Supreme Court which dismissed the Society's C. P. S. L. A. No. 176 of 1970 on 13‑10‑1970 and Review Petition No. 2 of 1971, on 8‑3‑1974. The Society had contested the ejectment petition by denying the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The preliminary issue framed in respect of this controversy was found against the Society on 30‑7‑1977 and an order of ejectment was passed against it on 5‑11‑1978. The Society's appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Sialkot, on 10‑6‑1979. It then moved S. A. O. No. 493 of 1979 before the High Court but the same, too was dismissed on 17‑5‑1982. Hence this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at some length to press the point that the two rooms in question had not been excluded from the auction, that they formed part of the industrial concern purchased by the Society in the auction held on 27‑1‑1960 and that therefore, the property transferred in favour of the respondent did not in fact include the two rooms. He has, therefore, contended that the P. T. O. issued in favour of the respondent bad been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and as such should not have been acted upon by the Controller. Another contention is that as the Settlement authorities had already taken cognizance of the question of revising the P. T. O., the ejectment proceeding should have been kept pending.

3. It is not necessary for us in the present proceeding to go into the details of the litigation which had ensued between parties and had finally ended when this Court refused to interfere with the decision of the High Court in the aforesaid L. P. A. No. 177 of 1965. The fact remains that the P. T. O. dated 24‑4‑1961, issued in favour of the respondent, a photostat of which has been furnished at pages 50 to 52 of the paper‑book, describes the property tranferred as "House No. 1/910 E. O. Ganga Ram". Apparently, the whole house bearing No. 1/910 and originally owned by Ganga Rams evacuee bad been transferred to the respondent. The disputed rooms form part of this house. The contentions of learned counsel, which are in fact directed against the validity or correctness of the P. T. O., cannot be gone into by the Rent Controller as he was bound to act and proceed upon it and not to go beyond it. The P. T. O. has neither been cancelled nor ha4 its operation been suspended. The plea that the ejectment proceeding should have been kept pending is, therefore, not tenable.

4. Another contention raised is that a P. T. D. had also issued in favour of the petitioner, which included the double‑storeyed building and that as such the Courts below have erred in not acting upon the same and instead preferring the P. T. O. issued in favour of the respondent. No copy of the P. T. D. has been furnished. However, admittedly, the P. T. D B had issued pursuant to the decision of the High Court dated 8‑10‑1965 in, Writ Petition No. 1858‑R‑1962, but as this decision had been set aside and, the Writ Petition itself dismissed in the result of the aforesaid L. P. A. No. 177, of 1965, the P. T. D. had lost its efficacy even if not formally cancelled.

5. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition, which we accordingly dismiss.

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.