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.
Second Appeal No. 28z of 1978, decided on 9th October, 1983.
.‑‑‑ S. 13‑‑Ejectment application‑Property a temple, declared as non- evacuee by Custodian‑Tenant admitting in written statement that be had been paying tent to landlord as tenant‑Contention that there was no jurisdiction in Rent Controller to hear application in view of its being an evacuee property, held, had no force in circumstances‑ Temple, held further could hardly be said to belonging to any particular person who became evacuee except a trustee who could become evacuee.
‑‑ S. 7‑Evacuee property, declaration of‑Held, property can be declared evacuee property only by Custodian arid not any one else.
Muhammad Ahmed for Appellant.
Syed Abbas Zia for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 9th October, 1983.
This is a Second Appeal filed by Syed Bashir Ali against the Judgment of VIth Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 4‑1‑1977 whereby the defence of the appellant was struck off under section 13 (6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on account of his failure to have com‑ plied with the order of the deposit of rent passed against him on 18‑12‑1975. I have seen that order and the finding of default appear to be amply justified as shown in paragraph 1 of that order. The appeal is also directed against the order of 5th Additional District Judge, Karachi where the appeal of the appellant was dismissed and it was held that he was in default.
The learned counsel Mr. Muhammad Ahmad has fairly conceded that he cannot question the concurrent finding of the default but he submitted than there was no jurisdiction in the Rent Controller to hear the application for ejectment as the property was an evacuee property. This submission of the counsel does not appear to be justified in view of the fact that on 9‑5‑1950 the relevant property was declared to be non‑evacuee property by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. That order appears to be justified in view of the fact that the property is of a Temple and the property of the Temple could hardly be said be belonging to any particular person who became evacuee at that time. Of course the trustees could become evacuee but there is no such determination in this case. In any case the said order of the Custodian was re‑iterated by three different orders of various Custodians on 2‑1‑1958, 25‑11‑1961 and 29‑10‑1971 and hence it is no more open to the appellant to challenge the status of that property as being a non‑evacuee property. It is very well‑established that a property can be declared to be an evacuee property only by the Custodian and not any one else.
Even otherwise the appellant had admitted in their written statement before the Rent Controller that he was the tenant of the property and had been paying rent to the respondent.
It is, therefore, apparent that there is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed. Since the premises are non‑residential and the appellant has to make alternate arrangement for his occupation. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that he should be evicted four months after this date provided be continued to deposit the rent in the trial Court. In case of failure of deposit of the rent in time the writ of ejectment will be issued without any notice to the appellant.
M. B. A. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer