GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ASADULLAH SIDDIQUI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had upheld the eviction of a tenant by a transferee landlord on the grounds of default in rent payment. The tenant had challenged the identity of the property transferred and the service of notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Rent Controller, affirmed by the Additional District Judge, found against the tenant on these preliminary issues and ordered the deposit of arrears and future rent under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, concurred with the lower courts regarding the identity of the property and dismissed the second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the validity of the transfer order in favour of the respondent could not be challenged in ordinary civil proceedings or rent litigation, as such challenges are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the High Court via writ petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the petition.
- Can the validity of a transfer order under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 be challenged in rent eviction proceedings?
- Is a writ petition the exclusive remedy for challenging the validity of a transfer order in favour of a transferee landlord?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
- Section 13(6), Rent Restriction Ordinance
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner is a tenant, and the respondent applied for the eviction of the former on the ground of default in payment of rent. The respondent is a transferee and although he served a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, on the petitioner the latter failed to pay or tender rent within three months of the service of notice. The petitioner raised preliminary issues challenging the identity of the property transferred to the respondent and the service of the notice upon the petitioner. Both the issues were found against the petitioner. Thereafter considering the case on merits the Controller passed the impugned order dated 5-10-1971, under section 13(6) of the Rent Restric--petition Ordinance directing the petitioner "to deposit Rs.2,200 as arrears of rent till 3-10-1969 and Rs. 2,400 from 3-10-190 to 3-10-1971". The amount was ordered to be deposited on or before 5-11-1971. There was also an order to deposit future rent from 3-10-1971 onwards at the rate of Rs.100 p.m. Before the 15th of each succeeding month. On appeal by the petitioner the learned Additional District Judge upheld the order of the Rent Controller but extended the time for the deposit of arrears till 25-3- 1972. In the 2nd appeal before the High Court the main question for consideration was the identity of the property. The High Court on a consideration of the evidence including the evidence of a son of the petitioner himself and documentary evidence concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge and held that the property was the same that had been transferred to the respondent and had been in his possession. The second appeal was consequently dismissed.
2. The validity of the order of transfer in favour of the respon--dent could not be challenged before the Courts. It could only have been done on a writ petition before the High Court.
3. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.
4. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD UMER and 8 others vs Haji ISLAMUDDIN KHAN 1985 CLC 999
- Mistri SARDAR ALI vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD 1982 CLC 1844