Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 476‑K of 1984, decided on 18th June, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment of the Sind High Court, dated 10th September, 1984, in F.R.A. 702 of 1984).

‑‑‑S. 13(2)(vi)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Ground of reconstruction‑‑Building plan approved by competent authority‑‑Order of ejectment confirmed by High Court and attained finality‑‑Subsequently, Building Control Authority issued notification suspending approval of those building plans wherein no agreement between landlord and tenants for alternate accommodation or compensation was submitted‑‑Tenant in execution proceedings sought protection of notification‑‑Objection overruled on ground that eviction order having attained finality, subsequent Regulation does not, in any way, render order of eviction inexecutable‑‑Regylations cannot be given retrospective operation so as to take away finality of adjudication made by competent Courts or authorities under which vested rights have accrued.

‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Sind Building Control Ordinance (V of 1979), S. 21‑‑Karachi Building Control Authority Notification, dated 7‑4‑1984‑‑Interpretation‑ Past and closed transaction‑‑Subsequent legislation‑‑Effect of‑‑Ejectment order having attained finality‑‑Regulation promulgated subsequently could not be given retrospective operation so as to take away finality of adjudication made by competent Court or authorities under which vested rights had accrued.

Suleman Kassam, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 18th June, 1985.

The petitioners being tenants of the respondent were ordered to be evicted from the disputed premises by the Rent Controller on the ground that respondent (landlady) required the premises for reconstruction /erection of a new building at the site. Petitioners' appeal against the order of eviction was dismissed with the modification that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of reinduction as provided by section 13(5‑B) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.

2. On an execution filed by the landlady the tenants objected to the execution of the order of eviction on the ground that under the public Notification, dated 7th April, 1984, issued by the Karachi Building Control Authority in exercise of its powers under section 21(A) of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979, the permission accorded by the Authority approving building plans stands suspended wherein no agreement between the landlord and tenants for alternate accommodation or compensation, has been submitted. The learned Rent Controller over‑ruled the objection on the ground that the eviction order having attained finality by the judgment of the High Court in appeal, the regulation issued by means of the public notice subsequently by the Karachi Building Control Authority "will not erase the order passed by the High Court", vide order, dated 18th July, 1984.

3. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his objection to eviction, the petitioners went up in appeal before the Sind High Court, but a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by his judgment, dated 10th September, 1984, agreeing with the view taken by the Rent Controller, dismissed the appeal. In these circumstances, the petitioners now seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the legal effect of the Karachi Building Control Regulations is to render the order of ejectment inexecutable, in so far as the sanction accorded by the Karachi Building Control Authority on the basis of which the order of ejectment was based stands suspended. This contention was also urged before the High Court and was rejected on grounds which may be reproduced from the impugned judgment as under:‑‑

"I do not agree with the said submission. In the first instance public notice of K . B . A . is not meant to suspend those building plans which have been canvassed before the Civil Courts and on the basis of which an order has been passed by the High Court. In fact this plan has now the sanction of the High Court and the public notice does not state that the building plans which have been made the basis of orders of the High Court would stand suspended. Therefore. notification, dated 7th April, 1984 of K.D.A. is not applicable in the present case. Mr. Lakhani also pointed out that the building plan had in fact been renewed on 16‑7‑1984 and in this view of the matter also the question of suspension of plan does not arise."

We are in substantial agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the Regulation on which reliance has been placed does not in any way render the order of eviction inexecutable. The admitted position seems to be that the order of eviction was passed on 31st July, 1982 and attained finality on the dismissal of appeal by the High Court on 12th October, 1983. Clearly, therefore. the Regulation issued by the Karachi Building Control Authority pressed into service was promulgated much later in 1984. The Regulations, obviously cannot be given retrospective operation so as to take away the finality of adjudication made by competent Courts or authorities under which vested rights have accrued. We were not shown any law or rule of interpretation by which such past and closed transaction can be affected by subsequent legislation as is the case with the Regulations issued by the Karachi Building Control Authority under section 21 of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979.

5. In view of the above, we find no substance in this petition which is accordingly 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.