Malik KHAN MUHAMMAD vs ABDULLAH AND Other
This matter arises from a petition challenging the High Court's order which set aside the transfer of an evacuee shop made in favour of the petitioner by the Settlement Authorities. The core legal question concerned whether a tenant, who entered into a rent deed with the auction-purchaser of a property, could subsequently claim and obtain the transfer of the same property in his own name under the settlement schemes by creating confusion regarding property numbers. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was eminently just and proper, affirming that a tenant who rented the property from the rightful auction-purchaser and execution of a rent deed could lay no claim to the shop. The court laid down the principle that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord from whom he took the property on rent, and that Settlement Authorities cannot arbitrarily transfer properties to tenants in derogation of valid auction purchases and issued permanent transfer documents.
- Can a tenant who executed a rent deed for an evacuee property subsequently obtain its transfer in his own name under the settlement schemes?
- Whether the Settlement Authorities can transfer a property to a tenant in disregard of a valid auction purchase and issued permanent transfer documents?
- Does a tenant have any lawful claim to a property he obtained on rent from the rightful owner?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The Settlement Authority had put on auction an evacuee Shop No. B-IX-6- S-21 situated in Ghala Mandi, Jhelum, in occupation of one Niaz A.I, which was purchased by respondent No. 1 herein on 30-7-1960. He was issued a P. T. O. On 16-2-1961 and the P. T. D. On 31-3- 1964. After Niaz A.I left the shop, the respondent No. 1 herein rented out the shop in favour of the petitioner herein, who executed a rent deed on 15-12-1965. After about 10 years, he filed a form under the Revised Settlement Scheme No. VIII on the allegation that the number of the shop in his possession was Shop No. B-IX-5-S-2, and this plea was accepted and he was transferred the shop on 19-2-1974. The respondent challenged this order, but despite running up and down, the Settlement Authority maintained their order of transfer in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1, therefore, moved the High Court by a writ petition.
2. The learned Judge in the High Court after fully examining all -the facts accepted the said writ petition observing :- "In law and in fairness, the petitioner having purchased the shop in public auction, and having rented out the same to the respondent No. 1, who executed a rent deed dated. 15-12-1965, the latter could lay no claim to the shop in question which he had obtained on rent from the petitioner. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner has created confusion with reference to numbers without realising, in spite of his attention having been drawn to the fact, that the shop in possession of the respondent No. 1 had been obtained by the latter on rent from the petitioner who had been issued permanent transfer deed. In this view of the matter, the orders of the Settlement Authorities culminating in the order of Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner dated 9-8-1976 were declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect."
3. This petition has been filed to challenge the above order of the High Court.
4. It is quite obvious that the High Court's order is eminently just, proper and requires absolutely no interference. This petition must, therefore, fail and is dismissed hereby.