ABDUL ALI vs ADAM IBRAHIM
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order issued by the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan. The petitioner, an occupant of an evacuee plot, challenged an eviction order granted in favour of the respondent, who had acquired the property via a Provisional Transfer Order from the Settlement Department. The respondent sought eviction based on the petitioner's failure to pay rent following a notice served under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the Additional District Judge accepted the respondent's appeal, ordering eviction. The High Court upheld this decision, finding that the statutory notice was served and rent remained unpaid. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued the property was a building site, necessitating a suit for possession rather than eviction proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that as this argument was not raised in the lower courts, it could not be introduced for the first time. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact regarding the service of notice and non-payment of rent.
- Can a party raise a new legal argument regarding the nature of the property for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 if they fail to pay rent after receiving a notice under Section 30?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner is the occupant of evacuee plot bearing No. O. T. 7/7, Old Town, Karachi. He had built a but over the plot and residing there since 1947. This property was transferred to the respondent by the Settlement Department by a Provisional Transfer Order dated the 8th February 1964. The respondent sent a notice to the petitioner on the 20th December 1965, informing him of the transfer of the property in dispute in his favour and calling upon him to pay rent. On the 14th November 1966, the respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner in the Court of Rent Controller, Karachi, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to comply with the notice and has also failed to pay the rent. He also alleged that he needed the property for his own residence The learned Rent Controller dismissed the respondent's application on the 24th January 1968. The respondent challenged this order in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Karachi, which was accepted and the order of eviction of the petitioner was granted. The petitioner filed a Second Appeal against the said order in the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi, which was dismissed on the 18th May 1971. A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the respondent had served a notice on the petitioner under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and further held that he had failed to pay the rent to the respondent in accordance with law. He further held that even if the property is a building site the petitioner is liable to be evicted and he is not entitled to any protection under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order of the High Court.
2. In support of the petition, Mr. Khalilullah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the property in dispute is a building site and, therefore, the respondent should have filed a suit for possession against the petitioner. This point was not raised either before the Subordinate Court or the High Court. We would, therefore, not permit it to be raised for the first time in this petition before us.
3. There is ample evidence on the record that the respondent had served a notice under section 30 of the said Act. The respondent has produced in evidence, a copy of notice, Exh. A/4, together with the reply of the respondent, Exh. A/5. There is a finding of fact by the two Courts below that the notice was sent by the respondent and reply, Exh. A/5, was sent by the petitioner. We are not inclined to d1sturb this finding of fact. It is not disputed that the petitioner has failed to pay rent as required by the notice. In these circumstances, the High Court was perfectly justified in dismissing his appeal.
4. The petition is dismissed.