Pakistan Case Law
1973 SCMR 353

Khawaja ABDUL QAYYUM vs MR. JUSTICE SHAMIM HUSSAIN QADRI AND 6 Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1973 SCMR 353
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1972
Date1973-03-22
Judge(s)Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Sajjad Ahmad and Salahuddin Ahmed
Authored byMuhammad Yaqub Ali
ResultAppeal allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated as an appeal concerning a property dispute between the appellant, Khawaja Abdul Qayyum, and respondents 1 to 4, involving conflicting claims over property transfer orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner. The parties reached a compromise agreement, which the Supreme Court incorporated into its order. The agreement modified the original transfer order, demarcating specific property portions for the appellant and respondents 1 to 4, with provisions for the issuance of Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.D.) by the Settlement authorities. Additionally, the Court addressed the status of respondent No. 5, who claimed statutory tenancy. The Court held that respondent No. 5, residing abroad, and his licensees were not entitled to statutory tenancy or notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, as they were not in personal occupation. Consequently, the Court directed them to vacate the premises within six months, failing which they would be liable for eviction and payment of rent arrears. The appeal was allowed in terms of the compromise and the Court's specific directions regarding the occupants.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Are licensees of a tenant entitled to notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Does a person residing abroad and not in personal occupation of a property qualify for statutory tenancy under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Can the Supreme Court enforce a compromise agreement regarding property transfer and eviction of occupants?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
settlement of propertypermanent transfer deedstatutory tenancycompromise decreeevictiondisplaced persons

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The contesting parties Khawaja Abdul Qayyum. Appellant, and Mr. Justice Shamim Hussain Qadri, Mr. Nasim Hussain Qadri. Mr. Saleem Kussain Qadri, and Mr. Naim Mohyuddin, respondents 1 to 4, have arrived at a compromise on the terms and conditions given below :-----

(1) That the appellant Khawala Abdul Qayyum accepts the order of transfer passed by the Settlement Commissioner on the 6th August 1962, subject to the modification that the area transferred to him will comprise the portion demarcated by the Court on the plan "X" as A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H.

(2) That the appellant shall vacate the Annex. Marked 36-A in the plan which is now in his occupation within one year and six months from the date of the order of the Court and deliver possession thereof to respondents 1 to 4.

(3) That the appellant shall be entitled to remove the Malba of the portion 36-A within the aforesaid period.

2. If the appellant fails to vacate the portion 36-A and deliver possession to the respondents 1 to 4 within the period of one year and six months, he shall be liable to be dispossessed under order of the Court.

(4) That the respondents 1 to 4 will deposit in this Court an amount of Rs. 25,000 and the same will be paid to the-appel--lant on his delivering possession of 36-A to the said respon--dents or on his dispossession under order of the Court.

(5) That the Settlement authorities shall issue P. T. D. Of the area marked A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H on Plan "X" to the appellant and of the remaining area to the respondents 1 to 4 in terms of the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 6th August 1962, with the modifications made in the compromise.

(6) Parties shall bear their own costs of this litigation throughout.

3. Mr. Hidayatullah Mokal, Settlement Commissioner (Legal), undertakes that the terms and conditions of the compromise embodied in the order of the Court will be implemented by the A Settlement authorities. Permanent Transfer Deed of the portion marked A, B, C, D, E, F, G and EI on Plan "X" will be issued in the name of the appellant. Likewise Permanent Transfer Deed of the remaining area will be issued in the names of the respondents 1 to 4. All necessary steps shall also be taken by the Settlement authorities to evict persons other than respondent No. 5 in occupation of the portion A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H and possession thereof will be delivered to the appellant without any delay.

4. The respondent No. 5 has exhausted all departmental and legal remedies to obtain transfer of the portion 36-B in his possession which is now included in the portion A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H and stands transferred to the appellant. This portion was transferred to the appellant by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 6th August 1962. That order still remains in field.

5. Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, learned counsel for respon--dent No. 5, argued that his client has acquired statutory tenancy under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act for a period which will extend to six years from the date on which the appellant serves on him the notice of transfer. It was admitted by the learned counsel that respondent No. 5 is not in occupation of portion 36-B and is residing in the United King--dom. Past history of the case shows that respondent No. 5 has been residing in the United Kingdom since long and has not occupied personally 36-B since before its transfer to the appellant. Some members of his family are residing in the portion 36-B, but as licensees, they are not entitled to notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act Indeed, they have already taken advantage of the dispute between the appellant and respondents 1 to 4 and remained in occupation of the portion 36-B for more than ten years since its transfer to the appellant without payment of rent.

6. In the circumstances neither respondent No. 5 nor the licensees under him are entitled to continue in possession of the portion 36-B. They are allowed six months time to vacate the promises and deliver possession to the appellant. In default they shall be dispossessed under order of the Court and also be liable to pay arrears of rent to the appellant.

7. The appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise between the appellant and respondents 1 to 4 and the order passed by the Court as against respondents 5 to 7. There will be no order as to costs.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.