PIR MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Others vs Mst. FARHAT AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal in limine of a second appeal concerning the ejectment of the petitioners from an urban property. The core legal questions involved whether the ejectment proceedings were misconceived due to pending settlement proceedings, whether the petitioner was entitled to a notice under section 30 of the repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of hearing by the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment proceedings were validly launched on the basis of a P.T.O. following demarcation, that the question of notice under section 30 was merely of academic value since such notice is no longer necessary, and that the petitioner was himself at fault for failing to produce evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether ejectment proceedings can be launched on the basis of a P.T.O. while settlement proceedings are pending?
- Does the failure to issue a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 vitiate ejectment proceedings when such notice is no longer necessary?
- Can a party complain of a lack of fair opportunity of hearing when their case was closed due to their own failure to produce evidence?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from the order dated 15-5-1975 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a second ap--peal against petitioners' ejectment from an urban property, was dismissed in limine.
2. Learned counsel has highlighted three aspects of this case one, that the petitioner was transferee under the settlement law, of a part of the property in question, the dispute regarding which is still pending, therefore, the ejectment proceedings were misconceived. Two, that although the Burmah, Shall Co. Ltd. Was the original lessee of the site in question the peti--tioner was in his own right entitled to a notice under section 30 of the now repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, And three, that the petitioner was not afforded fair opportunity of hear-- ing by the learned Rent Controller.
3. Similar arguments, having been raised in the High Court, they were properly attended to. The dispute on the settlement side having for the time being, been concluded by demarcation which allegedly went in respon--dents' favour, it is not contested, that eviction proceedings could be launched on the basis of a P. T. O. Also.
4. The question of notice under section 30, in the context and the circum--stances of the case, is only of an academic value, because, even if the peti--tioner could succeed on this point and obtain a consequential remand order, that will not make any difference because, now a notice under section 30 is not necessary. In any case the treatment of this issue by the High Court is not such which should justify interference by this Court.
5. After examining the complaint about the lack of fair opportunity of hearing, we find that the petitioner was himself at fault in not producing evidence, and availing the opportunity in this behalf, on technical flimsy grounds. His case was rightly closed.
6. There is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.