Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.2352 of 1981, decided on 20th June, 1984.

---S.17--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9--Eviction- Rent Controller directing tenants to deposit s certain sum within a stipulated time for payment to landlord for becoming owner of disputed house and tenants failing to pay or deposit said amount within stipulated period, would be ejected from house and possession thereof handed over to landlord--Such order of Refit Controller, held, illegal--Rent Controller, could either accept or reject ejectment application and had no power to pass such order--Ejectment application remanded to Rent Controller for disposal in accordance with law.

Iftikhar-ul-Haq Khan for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 20th June, 1984.

In view of the order proposed to be passed in this writ petition it is desirable to say the least touching the merits. While disposing of the application moved by the late Khawaja Muhammad Shari under section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1973, before the Rent Controller, Gujranwala Cantonment, for securing eviction of respondents 1 to 3 and the deceased predecessor-in-interest of respondents 4 to 9 from the house in dispute, situate within the limits of Gujranwala Cantonment, the Rent Controller ordered on the 5th February, 1978, "the respondents to pay Rs.2,500 to the petitioner directly or deposit the same amount in the Court within two months so that the amount might be disbursed to the petitioner and after paying Rs.2,500 the respondents would become owners of the disputed house and in case the respondents failed to pay or deposit Rs.2,500 in the stipulated period, they would be ejected from the house and possession thereof would be handed over to the petitioner." The petitioner's appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, on the 11th November, 1980. The legality of the order of the learned Rent Controller as well as of the learned Additional District Judge has been assailed by means of the present writ petition.

2. Indisputably the Rent Controller had no power under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act to pass the impugned order; he could either accept or reject the ejectment application. The order is patently illegal. The petition is consequently accepted, the impugned orders of the Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge are declared to have been passed without lawful authority and to be no legal effect. The ejectment petition will be remanded to the Rent Controller, Gujranwala Cantonment, who will be directed to try and dispose it of according to law. There will be no order as to costs.

M . Y . H . Petition accepted and case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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