Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 823 of 1981, decided on 15th August, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 17‑5‑1981, in Writ Petition No. 7517 and 1665 of 1980 and 1981, respectively).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30‑‑Ejectment‑‑Landlord transferee of evacuee property‑‑Change in transfer documents of landlord‑‑Fresh notice under S. 30 of Act XXVIII of 1958‑‑Landlord's ejectment application failed for want of fresh notice after change in transfer documents‑‑Order impugned‑‑High Court accepting writ petition on ground that notwithstanding change in transfer documents, landlord's position having remained unaffected, earlier notice would enure for his benefit for entire proceedings, and remanded case‑‑Order challenged‑‑High Court's view, held, unexceptionable‑‑But on showing that landlord was no more transferee of property in dispute, it was observed by Supreme Court that such order or any other proceeding connected therewith be taken up before Rent Controller where case was pending disposal.

Civil Petition No. 1478 of 1980 rel.

S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th August, 1984.

The petition has called in question judgment, dated 17‑5‑1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a writ petition arising out of a rent restriction matter, filed by a landlord (respondent herein) was allowed; and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision in accordance with law.

2. The landlord respondent had failed before the lower forum or the ground that some change having been made in his transfer documents (it being a case of transfer of evacuee property) a fresh notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (No. XXVIII) of 1958 had become necessary on account of the change. A learned Single Judge in the High Court on respondent's writ petition held that notwithstanding the change in the transfer of documents the respondent's position as landlord was not affected and that the earlier notice under section 30 would enure for his benefit for the entire proceedings.

3. The view expressed by the learned Judge on the question of notice under section 30 no doubt is unexceptionable but the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice another factor which according to him would change the entire complexion of the case. He has placed on record an order passed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 22nd of March, 1983 in order to show that respondent Abdul Majeed Khan is no more the transferee of the property in dispute. He has also placed on record two orders passed by this Court: One, on 9th May, 1983 and the other on 11th of June, 1983 in Civil Petition No. 1478 of 1980 wherein the subsequent change having been noticed some observations were made in connection with the said order, dated 22nd of March, 1983.

4. After hearing the learned counsel on this point while on the one hand we do not find any merit in the present petition on the other it is deemed necessary to observe that the plea with regard to the order, dated 22nd March, 1983 or any other proceedings connected therewith, if they have brought about any change, may be taken up before the Rent Controller before whom the case is stated to be still pending, in accordance with law.

5. This petition with the foregoing observation is dismissed

M . I . Petition 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.