MAKHAN MAS1H AND OTHERS vs ACTING PRINCIPAL, F. C. COLLEGE AND OTHERS
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their revision petition by the High Court, concerning the deduction of 5 percent from their monthly salaries as rent for residential buildings situated within F. C. College, Lahore, which had been nationalized under Martial Law Regulation No. 118. The core legal question was whether the Government was entitled to continue deducting rent from the salaries of the occupants while the title to the property remained sub judice in pending civil proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the deduction of rent should not be stopped, reasoning that if the Government succeeds in proving its title, accumulated arrears would be difficult for salaried employees to pay in a lump sum, whereas if the Government fails, the collected amounts can be refunded. The Court dismissed the petition while directing the Government to fulfill its obligation to maintain the residential buildings in a condition of perfect repair in exchange for the rent collected.
- Can the Government deduct rent from the salaries of occupants of nationalized college residential buildings while the title to the property is sub judice?
- Whether the Supreme Court will restrain the collection of rent by the Government pending the final decision on property ownership in a civil suit?
- Does the receipt of rent by the Government impose a corresponding obligation to maintain the residential buildings in a condition of perfect repair?
- Martial Law Regulation No. 118
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 1-3-1982, dismissing their revision petition.
2. The matter relates or residential buildings situated in F. C. College, Lahore. The petitioners were residing in the said buildings and paying rent to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 till the college was nationalised and taken over by the Government under M. L. R.
118. Thereafter, the Government started deducting rent from their salaries at the rate of 5% per month towards the rent of the said buildings on the ground that after nationalisation of the college it had become owner of the said buildings. The question of title of the property is, however, subject- matter of a civil suit as well as leave petition before this Court, and it has not yet finally been decided as to whether only the institution was nationalised or the buildings attached thereto as well. The petitioners' prayer is that the Government be restrained from deducting 5% from their monthly salaries towards the rent as the title of the Government to the buildings is still under challenge.
' It was urged that since the question of title has not yet been decided the Government has no right to collect the rent for the same residential buildings situated within the F. C. College, Lahore. On being asked some of the petitioners who were present in Court stated that no repairs etc. Had been carried out in the said buildings eversince they were taken over, so much so they have not even been white-washed.
3. Learned State counsel submitted, on the other hand, that after the nationalisation the Government was entitled to collect rents from the persons occupying the residential buildings in question but he admitted on instructions from the relevant official accompanying him in the Court, that no repairs whatsoever had been carried out to the buildings in question. He, however, submitted that if the Government is authorized to continue receiving rents the houses shall be kept in perfect State of repairs and it shall commence forthwith.
4. We have given or careful consideration to the matter and feel that it would not be proper to stop the payment of the monthly rent by the petitioners, through deduction from their salaries, because in case, the Government succeeds in proving that they are, indeed, entitled to the receipt of rents it would be extremely difficult for the residents of the said buildings who are salaried persons being employees of the college to pay the accumulated rents in lump sum, whereas in case the Government is not able to prove its title to receive the rents it can always be required to refund the money.
We, therefore, reject the prayer of the petitioners restraining the Government from collecting the rents from the occupants of the residential buildings, with the direction that the Government while receiving the rents should fulfil its obligation to maintain all the residential buildings A situated within the F. C. College, Lahore, in a condition of perfect repair, not only because they receive the rents but also because they claim the buildings to be their properties. It may be mentioned again that the learned Additional Advocate-General has assured the Court that if the Government is allowed to continue receiving the rents the required repairs shall be commenced forthwith.
' With the above observation the petition is dismissed.