MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI

ORDER

In this Constitutional petition order dated 28‑10‑1989 passed by the Rent Controller, Gujrat, accepting the eviction petition of respondent No.1 and the order dated 21‑2‑1991 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the. said order of the Rent Controller have been challenged.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions:‑

(i) That no notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) was served at the relevant time after the transfer of property in favour of the respondent;

(b) That the petitioners were not occupying the premises as tenants under the Rehabilitation Department;

(c) That the ejectment petition suffered from multifariousness inasmuch as there was misjoinder of causes of action and the parties. His precise argument was that each occupant of different portion of the same property should have been proceeded against separately instead of joining all. of them in one ejectment petition. For the foregoing reasons it was submitted that the issue regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not correctly decided and should have been answered in favour of the present petitioners and ejectment petition dismissed.

3. I have gone through the statement made by petitioner No.3 Jan Muhammad when he appeared as witness on behalf of the petitioners as R.W.5 in which he categorically stated that they were in possession of the property since 1949‑50. He also stated that they were refugees from Jammu and Kashmir and that they had not paid any rent to any person though PTD had been issued to the petitioners. The ejectment petition was filed in 1987 after the repeal of the settlement laws. In this view of the matter, the petitioners became owners by operation of law on the transfer of property in favour of respondent No.1 and by virtue of Section 30 of the Act, no further overt act was necessary to bring into existence relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that since the petitioners were not in possession as envisaged by Section 2(6) of the Act, as the petitioners were not acknowledging the Rehabilitation Department as their landlord, therefore, the respondent was obliged to file a regular civil suit for possession instead of filing an ejectment petition. He, however, when questioned argued that since the petitioner No.3 stated in his statement that the petitioners were in possession of the property as refugees from Jammu and Kashmir their attempt was to show that the property in dispute in their possession was not available for transfer to any other person according to the Settlement laws. If the petitioners were claiming to lie in "possession" of the property for the purpose of exemption of the same from transfer under the Act, such possession would be sufficient to constitute possession as envisaged by the Act so as to bring into existence relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties once the property was transferred to the respondent. It may be observed here that in ejectment proceedings legality and validity of transfer orders passed by the Settlement authorities could not be questioned and gone into.

5. As regards multifariousness, the argument has no force. The building was one and instead of filing the separate ejectment petition against each of the occupants, the respondent. filed one ejectment petition by joining the occupants of the property which course of action is not prohibited altogether. It was for the Rent Controller to have ordered for separate trials and if such an order was not passed by him in his discretion, no objection can be raised by the petitioners as no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to them on that account as the case of the petitioners alongwith others was identical.

6: After the repeal of Settlement laws in 1974 according to the law declared by the Supreme Court no notice was necessary before filing the ejectment petition. The argument based on this plea has no force. Even otherwise the ejectment petition itself could be construed to be a notice to the petitioners and since the order has been passed after the expiry of period of 90 days and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners on that account as they were posted with the knowledge through the ejectment petition that the property has been .transferred to the respondent to whom the petitioners admittedly did not pay any rent as is evident from the statement of R.W. 5 who is petitioner No.3.

7. Before parting; with this order it may be mentioned that no issue was got framed by the petitioners on the point of multifariousness which plea shall be deemed to have been abandoned. No case has been made out for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction as the orders passed by the two Courts below do not suffer from jurisdictional defect. The equity is also against the petitioners who have not paid any rent to respondent No. 1 since 1969 when the PTD was issued to respondent No. 1. The writ petition fails which is hereby dismissed in limine.

A.A./M‑3186/L Petition dismissed.