Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal from Original Order No.84 of 1978, decided on 14^th May, 1983.

--S.13--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.30--Ejectment application--Notice--Repeal of Settle ment Laws--Giving of notice under S.. 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 before filing of ejectment petition, held, not necessary.

--S.13--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.30--Title to property--Transfer of property otherwise proved--Production of P.T.O. or , . T. D., held, not requirement of law.

Moeen-ud-Din for Appellant.

Ijaz Muhammad for Respondent.

Muhammad Ismail respondent purchased this property in auction on 19-12-1968. This auction was confirmed in 1968 and a P.T.D. was issued in 1972. The auction was challenged before the Settlement Commissioner, but the Settlement Commissioner repelled it vide his order dated 5-11-1973. Ismail moved an ejectment petition against Muhammad Salim appellant and another on 21-6-1975 but it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27-6-1975. He brought a second petition on 10-12-1975 but this time impleaded Muhammad Salim appellant alone. This petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 29-6-1979 on the ground that no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was given to the present appellant. In appeal, however, the finding was reversed and the appellate authority ordered the ejectment of the appellant vide its order dated 9-2-1978. The orders of the appellate authority have been challenged in the second appeal.

2. With the repeal of the Settlement Laws the obligation on the part of the landlord to give a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act does not exist any more and with the decision of the Supreme Court in this regard the appellate authority was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that Ismail respondent had no title in the properly. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the respondent did not bring on record any document of title, in the shape of P.T.O. or P.T.D. It is argued that in the absence of the documents the title of the property vesting in Ismail respondent cannot be assumed.

3. The respondent furnished A.1 which is the copy of bid-sheet and A.2 which is copy of order of Settlement Commissioner in support of his contention that he was the transferee of the property. The Settlement Commissioner has clearly observed in his order that a P.T.D. was issued on 3-2-1972. A.2 is an important piece of evidence and clearly shows that P.T.D. was issued in favour of Ismail respondent. He is, therefore, clearly the transferee of the property and, is entitled to move a petition for ejectment against the present appellant who has no title in the property. I do not think that there is any rule or law requiring the production of P.T.O. or P.T.D. if the fact of transfer of property can be proved otherwise. In the present case the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority are both agreed that the documents of title exist in favour of Ismail respondent. The Rent Controller dismissed ejectment petition on the sole ground that no notice under section 30 was given. This finding was against law and has subsequently been corrected by the appellate authority. As regards the title of the property, the two Courts have given a concurrent finding in favour of Ismail respondent. This finding is not open to challenge in second appeal unless a question of law is involved and no such law point has been agitated except for reiterating the question of sufficiency of evidence.

4. In view of the above considerations, I find no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed with costs.

M . A . K . Appeal 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.