Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeals Nos. 233 and 234 of 1980 ; 125 and 126 of 1981, decided on 25th May, 1982.

S. 15(2)(vi) read with Sind Summary Military Courts (Validation of Orders) Ordinance (I of 1980), S. 2(2) and Martial Law Order (M. L. A. Zone B) No. 20 of 1977, Art. 5(b)-Ejectment on ground of personal requirement-No copy . of ejectment petition made available to tenant nor informed about claim of landlord for his personal use or requirement-Order of ejectment passed by Military Court-Held, cannot be sustained in circumstances of case.

Abdul Qadir v. Amina Begum and others 1982 C L C 428 ref.

K. B. Bhutto for Petitioner.

N.A. Khokhar for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing : 9th May, 1982. .

The four appeals arise from the order of the President, Summary Military Court G' dated 24th October, 1977 by which Mrs. Aziz wife of Abdul Aziz and'Mr. Nevill Herbert Williams tenants of House No. 21-E, Block No. 2, P. E. C. H. S., Karachi were directed to hand over vacant possession to owner Mst. Hanifa Anjum by 1st January, 1978. Both the tenants, namely, Nevill and Mrs. Aziz (Mst. Fatima) had filed Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-886 of 1977 and D-887 of 1977 on 13-12-1977 challenging the afore said order. However, the Summary Military Courts (Validation of Orders) Ordinance, 1980 (Sid Ordinance No. 1 of 1980) was promulgated and took effect on 19-1-1980, section 2 whereof inter alia provided that an order passed by a Military Court at any time after 16th August, 1977 in any proceeding under M. L. O. 20 shall be deemed to have been passed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as if the said Ordinance was in force at the time when such order was passed and shall be deemed always to have effect accordingly. Subsection (2) of the aforesaid section 2 provides that an aggrieved person by any such order may within 30 days of the commencement of the Ordinance prefer an appeal to the High Court. It would appear that both the tenants, as a matter of abundant caution, filed First Rent Appeals Nos. 233 and 234 of 1980, but as the same were presented on 19-3-1980 more than 30 days after the commencement of the Ordinance on 19-1-1980, and further since by the order dated 16-2-1981 of a D. B. of this Court Petitions Nos. 886 of 1977 and 887 of 1977 among others, were treated as appeals under subsection (2) of section 2 of the Military Courts (Validation of Orders) Ordinance, 1980 from the date of the commencement of the said Ordinance, Mr. K. B. Bhutto, the learned counsel for the appellants, has not pressed F. R. A. 233 of 1980 and 234 of 1980 which are therefore dismissed. Both the First Rent Appeals, namely, Nos. 125 and 126 of 1981 challenge the same impugned order. It is the contention on behalf of both the appellants that on 18-10-1977 they each received a notice of the same date from the Summary Military Court G' for appearance on 20-10-1977 in some case filed by Mst. Hanifa Anjum. It is contended on behalf of both the appellants that they had not got any copy of the application and did not therefore know of the case they had to meet. No opportunity was afforded to give evidence in defence. The record only shows the proceedings on 24th day of October, 1977. The statement of Flight Lt. Tariq Mansoor son of the respondent, who herself did not give evidence, was recorded. The statement of appellant Mrs. Aziz (Mst. Fatima) defendant and Mr. Nevill defendant (appellants herein) were also recorded. A perusal of the notice would show that, although there was mention of petition of Mst. Hanifa Anjum under M. L. O. 20 there was no indication of the nature of the dispute, although the cases which could be decided by the Summary Military Courts are listed from clauses (a) to ( f ) in section 2 of M: L. O. 20. It is also apparent from the statements of the defendants (appellants herein) that they spoke about regular payment of rents but did not make any statement about the matter referred to in the finding recorded by the Summary Military Courts which concern the personal need of the landlady, and mentions that the tenants were not vacating as they were paying very less rents. It is consequently clear that although under section 5(b) of M. L. O. No. 20 the Military Court :nay examine such oral or documentary evidence in support of the petition or any defence by the opposite-party, the procedure adopted eliminated the very possibility of doing so as no copy of the petition was made available to the tenants and they were obviously not informed about the claim for personal use or requirement of the landlady.

In Abdul Qadir v. Amina Begum and others (1982 C L C 428), a decision of this Court it was held that validation conferred by Military Courts (Validation of Orders) Ordinance upon orders under M. L. O. 20 passed by Summary Military Courts does not extend to an ejectment order passed in a case where the tenant was summoned by the Military Court without furnishing a copy of landlady's application and the order of ejectment was passed the same day. In the instant case, as already stated, it is apparent that no copy of the application was made available to the appellants and they were given only the opportunity of making statement without knowing what case they had to defend. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained and the appeals are allowed, and the order set aside with no order as to costs. The respondent will be free to file appeal under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which incidentally provides expeditious relief to widows under section 14 thereof.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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