Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 167 of 1978, decided on 9th February, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑5‑1978, in S. A. O. 106/78). .
---Art. 185 (3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction, Ordi nance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Ejectment‑Alleged lack of fair opportunity of hearing Petitioner himself found to be at fault in not producing evidence and avoiding .opportunity on technical flimsy grounds‑Held, case of petitioner tenant rightly closed by Controller‑Leave to appeal refused.
Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 9th February, 1983.
Leave to appeal has been sought from the order dated 15‑5‑1975 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a second ap peal against petitioners' ejectment from an urban property, was dismissed in limine.
Learned counsel has highlighted three aspects of this case one, that the petitioner was transferee under the settlement law, of a part of the property in question, the dispute regarding which is still pending, therefore, the ejectment proceedings were misconceived. Two, that although the Burmah, Shall Co. Ltd. was the original lessee of the site in question the peti tioner was in his own right entitled to a notice under section 30 of the now repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, And three, that the petitioner was not afforded fair opportunity of hear ing by the learned Rent Controller.
Similar arguments, having been raised in the High Court, they were properly attended to. The dispute on the settlement side having for the time being, been concluded by demarcation which allegedly went in respon dents' favour, it is not contested, that eviction proceedings could be launched on the basis of a P. T. O. also.
The question of notice under section 30, in the context and the circum stances of the case, is only of an academic value, because, even if the peti tioner could succeed on this point and obtain a consequential remand order, that will not make any difference because, now a notice under section 30 is not necessary. In any case the treatment of this issue by the High Court is not such which should justify interference by this Court.
After examining the complaint about the lack of fair opportunity of hearing, we find that the petitioner was himself at fault in not producing evidence, and availing the opportunity in this behalf, on technical flimsy grounds. His case was rightly closed.
There is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
S. Q. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer