PAKISTAN SPORTS CO OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LTD. vs Kh. MUHAMMAD
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent against the petitioner society regarding two rooms in a building. The petitioner challenged the ejectment, denying the landlord-tenant relationship and asserting that the property in question was part of an industrial concern it had purchased at auction, alleging the respondent's Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) was obtained through fraud. The Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the High Court all ruled against the petitioner, affirming the ejectment. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could look behind a valid, subsisting P.T.O. to determine title or validity of transfer. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller is bound by the P.T.O. and lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity or correctness of such a transfer document. The Court further held that as long as a P.T.O. remains uncancelled and its operation unsuspended, it must be acted upon. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the petitioner's contentions regarding title were outside the scope of ejectment proceedings.
- Can a Rent Controller adjudicate upon the validity or correctness of a Permanent Transfer Order in an ejectment proceeding?
- Is a Rent Controller bound to act upon a Permanent Transfer Order that has not been cancelled or suspended?
- Does a party have the right to challenge the title of a landlord based on a Permanent Transfer Order within summary ejectment proceedings?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding brought by respondent Kh. Muhammad Iqbal Butt against the petitioner Society from two rooms of a double-storeyed building bearing property No. 1/910 situate at Katchery Road, Sialkot City. The respondent's case was that a P. T. O. Had issued in his favour on 24-4-1961, whereby the double- storeyed building had been transferred to him, that he had served notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and that a challenge to the transfer had been set at rest by the High Court in L. P. A. No. 177 of 1965, decided on 31-3-1970 (reported in PLD 1971 Lah. 1) between the present parties, which decision had been upheld by the Supreme Court which dismissed the Society's C. P. S. L. A. No. 176 of 1970 on 13-10-1970 and Review Petition No. 2 of 1971, on 8-3-1974. The Society had contested the ejectment petition by denying the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The preliminary issue framed in respect of this controversy was found against the Society on 30-7-1977 and an order of ejectment was passed against it on 5-11-1978. The Society's appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Sialkot, on 10-6-1979. It then moved S. A. O. No. 493 of 1979 before the High Court but the same, too was dismissed on 17-5-1982. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at some length to press the point that the two rooms in question had not been excluded from the auction, that they formed part of the industrial concern purchased by the Society in the auction held on 27-1-1960 and that therefore, the property transferred in favour of the respondent did not in fact include the two rooms. He has, therefore, contended that the P. T. O. Issued in favour of the respondent bad been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and as such should not have been acted upon by the Controller. Another contention is that as the Settlement authorities had already taken cognizance of the question of revising the P. T. O., the ejectment proceeding should have been kept pending.
3. It is not necessary for us in the present proceeding to go into the details of the litigationwhich had ensued between parties and had finally ended when this Court refused to interfere with the decision of the High Court in the aforesaid L. P. A. No. 177 of 1965. The fact remains that the P. T. O.
Dated 24-4-1961, issued in favour of the respondent, a photostat of which has been furnished at pages 50 to 52 of the paper-book, describes the property transferred as "House No. 1/910 E. O.
Ganga Ram". Apparently, the whole house bearing No. 1/910 and originally owned by Ganga Rams evacuee bad been transferred to the respondent. The disputed rooms form part of this house. The contentions of learned counsel, which are in fact directed against the validity or correctness of the P. T. O., cannot be gone into by the Rent Controller as he was bound to act and proceed upon it and not to go beyond it. The P. T. O. Has neither been cancelled nor ha4 its operation been suspended.
The plea that the ejectment proceeding should have been kept pending is, therefore, not tenable.
4. Another contention raised is that a P. T. D. Had also issued in favour of the petitioner, which included the double-storeyed building and that as such the Courts below have erred in not acting upon the same and instead preferring the P. T. O. Issued in favour of the respondent. No copy of the P. T. D. Has been furnished. However, admittedly, the P. T. D--- B had issued pursuant to the decision of the High Court dated 8-10-1965 in, Writ Petition No. 1858-R-1962, but as this decision had been set aside and, the Writ Petition itself dismissed in the result of the aforesaid L. P. A. No. 177, of 1965, the P.
T. D. Had lost its efficacy even if not formally cancelled.
5. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition, which we accordingly dismiss.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAWAR HUSSAIN vs Mst. SHAMSUNNISA and another 1992 CLC 2293