Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 12 of 1977, decided on 3rd October, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 28th September, 1976 of the Lahore High Court in S. A. O. No. 670 of 1976).

-----Art. 185 (3)‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance "(VI of 1959), S. 13‑Landlord and tenant relationship of‑Petitioner applying for ejectment of respondent from a portion of composite evacuee property claiming transfer of same by virtue of P. T. O. issued in his favour‑Claim of petitioner to be a landlord controverted by respon dent‑‑Such property found to have been acquired by Provincial Government in Development Scheme of Lahore Improvement Trust under sanction of Central Government and transfer of such property having been held to be illegal and petitioner's ejectment application dismissed‑Second appeal of petitioner also dismissed by High Court on ground that under conditions of acquisition only P. T. D. holders, and not P. T. O. holders like petitioner, were entitled to be compensat ed by award of alternate land and hence petitioner could not be treated as landlord‑No interference with judgment of High Court found to be called for‑improvement Trust, however, desired to consider petitioner's case for transfer of property if found entitled to it under terms of sanction issued by Central Government and Resolution passed by Trust in relevant regard and practice followed in similar cases.

Sh. Muhammad Sadiq v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and another P L D 1963 Lah. 499 ref.

Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 3rd October, 1983.

The petitioner had applied for the ejectment of the respondent from a portion of a composite property comprising of nearly 2 dozen units on ‑the ground that he was its transferee from the Settlement Department and a P. T. O. stood issued in his favour. The res pondent controverted the claim of the petitioner to be the landlord on the ground that he was not its transferee.

2. It appears that the property although an evacuee property had been' acquired by the Provincial Government and was included in the Shah Alam Gate Development Scheme of the Lahore Improvement Trust. The West Pakistan Government had acquired the area in question after due sanction having been accorded by the Central Government under section 16 (3) (b) of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957. In view of the above the Lahore High Court had, in its judgment reported as Sh. Muhammad Sadiq v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and another, (P L D 1963 Lah. 499) held that the said property was immune from acquisition under section 3 of the Dis placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and the transfer by the Settlement authorities of any property included therein was illegal. The claim of the petitioner to be its landlord on account of the P. T. O. issued in his favour by the Settlement Department was, therefore, found to be of no value and his application for seeking ejectment of the respondent was, accordingly dismissed. The appeal before the Additional District Judge and the second appeal before the High Court having failed hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. Before the High Court the petitioner, in support of his appeal, pleaded that after the decision of the High Court in Muhammad Sadiq's case the petitioner along with some others had filed a writ petition (W. P. No. 211 of 1963) against the Lahore Improvement Trust, in which they had urged that the Central Government had, while according sanction of the acquisition of the property in favour of the Government of West Pakistan laid down certain conditions and one of these conditions was that the refugees who obtained P. T. D. would be compensated by award of alternative land. It was further submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the portion transferred to him by the Settlement Department under the above condition and that the learned counsel appearing for the Improvement Trust, in these proceedings, gave an undertaking to the Court that the said Trust would implement the conditions on which the section for acquisition was granted by the Central Government. The learned Judges of the High Court were pleased to hold the said writ petition as infructuous in view of the said undertaking. Reliance on the above undertaking was placed in the present case before the learned Judge in.‑ the High Court for the submission that the petitioner had become entitled to the transfer of this property and could, therefore, be treated as the landlord. This submission was repelled by the High Court by observing that admittedly the petitioner was not the holder of a P. T. D. but bad been issued only a P. T. O.

4. Kh. Muhammad Farooq learned counsel for the petitioner. In support of this petition, did not seriously contest the finding of the Courts below that the petitioner could not claim the status of a landlord, as the property in question could not be transferred to him by the Settlement Department but was at pains to submit that the Settlement Department had since issued him a Transfer Order (the new name for a P. T. D.) and that he bad thereby become entitled to get the portion of the property in his possession from the Lahore Improvement Trust in view of the undertaking given by its representative before the High Court. He went on to submit that in view of the observations made by the High Court while dismissing his second appeal the Lahore Improvement Trust was not even considering his case for grant of the property in dispute.

5. We are however, of the opinion that the observations made by the High Court, while dismissing the second appeal of the, petitioner, are not an impediment for the Lahore Improvement Trust to consider the case of the petitioner and to transfer of the property in question if he is entitled to it under the terms of the sanction issued by the Central Government and the resolutions passed by the Trust in the relevant regard and the practice it has followed in similar cases.

6. Subject to the above clarification, no other interference in the orders of the Courts below is called for. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of with these observations.

S. Q. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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