SALEH MUHAMMAD Versus HAROON

The petitioner claims to be allottee/lessee of a plot of land measuring 1 Kanal for running a hotel and restaurant in the year 1957. Subsequently, it appears that this land was taken over by the respondent and in lieu whereof the petitioner was allotted two hotel sites in the General Bus Stand, Faisalabad. In the year 1983, the control and management of General Bus Stand, Faisalabad, was transferred to Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad, from the Faisalabad Development Authority. According to the petitioner, he had on 12th February, 1985, obtained approval of the building plans and raised construction in accordance with the same. It is also averred that the petitioner had been paying the rent/lease money to the respondent, but on 5th September, 1991, respondent No.2 with ‑the help of local police sealed the premises in possession of the petitioner. This action has been challenged as being illegal and unlawful.

2. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no order whatsoever was passed by any authority competent in this behalf, but respondent No.2 has proceeded to seal the premises which has the effect of ousting the petitioner from the property in question.

3. The available record has been perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General. It appears that a report was made against, the petitioner that he had sublet the premises to the Mayor, who directed that those who had sublet the property in their occupation be served with notices. According to the case of ,the respondents, such notices were sent to the petitioner, but this is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not necessary to decide this I question at this stage, as it is clear from the perusal of the file of the respondents that no order whatsoever was passed by any competent authority for the ejectment of the petitioner. It needs no gainsaying that without there being a written order on the record, the respondents could not have proceeded to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the shop or seal the same.

In view of what has been said above, this petition is allowed and the act of the respondent No.2 in scaling the premises is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

It is, however, clarified that it shall be open to. the respondent to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law.

There shall be no orders as to costs.

H.B.T./M-209/L Petition allowed