NASEEB UD DIN vs RENT CONTROLLER And Other
This matter arises from a petition challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court that allowed a landlord's writ petition in a rent restriction case and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision. The core legal question concerned whether a change in the landlord's transfer documents for evacuee property necessitated the issuance of a fresh notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view—that the change in documents did not affect the respondent's position as landlord and that the earlier notice enured for his benefit—was unexceptionable. However, taking note of subsequent developments regarding a Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order affecting the transfer status of the property, the Court dismissed the petition while observing that the parties could raise pleas regarding subsequent changes before the Rent Controller where the proceedings remained pending. The key principle laid down is that a change in transfer documents does not necessarily vitiate a prior Section 30 notice, and subsequent factual changes affecting property title may be urged before the original forum upon remand.
- Does a change in a landlord's transfer documents of evacuee property necessitate a fresh notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Can subsequent administrative orders affecting property transfer status be raised before the Rent Controller upon remand?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The petition has called in question judgment, dated 17-5-1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a writ petition arising out of a rent restriction matter, filed by a landlord (respondent herein) was allowed; and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision in accordance with law.
2. The landlord respondent had failed before the lower forum or the ground that some change having been made in his transfer documents (it being a case of transfer of evacuee property) a fresh notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (No. XXVIII) of 1958 had become necessary on account of the change. A learned Single Judge in the High Court on respondent's writ petition held that notwithstanding the change in the transfer of documents the respondent's position as landlord was not affected and that the earlier notice under section 30 would enure for his benefit for the entire proceedings.
3. The view expressed by the learned Judge on the question of notice under section 30 no doubt is unexceptionable but the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice another factor which according to him would change the entire complexion of the case. He has placed on record an order passed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 22nd of March, 1983 in order to show that respondent Abdul Majeed Khan is no more the transferee of the property in dispute. He has also placed on record to orders passed by this Court: One, on 9th May, 1983 and the other on 11th of June, 1983 in Civil Petition No. 1478 of 1980 wherein the subsequent change having been noticed some observations were made in connection with the said order, dated 22nd of March, 1983.
4. After hearing the learned counsel on this point while on the one hand we do not find any merit in the present petition on the other it is deemed necessary to observe that the plea with regard to the order, dated 22nd March, 1983 or any other proceedings connected therewith, if they have brought about any change, may be taken up before the Rent Controller before whom the case is stated to be still pending, in accordance with law.
5. This petition with the foregoing observation is dismissed