Malik GHULAM HUSSAIN vs Haji MUHAMMAD HAYAT
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court in a second appeal arising from rent ejectment proceedings. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court exercised its discretion in accordance with judicial principles when it reduced the monthly rent of the property to Rs. 20, despite the landlord claiming Rs. 120 and the Rent Controller having previously fixed it at Rs. 80. Additionally, the case raises significant legal issues regarding the applicability of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, specifically whether the terms and conditions prior to transfer are unsuitable under Section 30 of said Act. Furthermore, the court must determine whether an intra-court appeal was competent under the Letters Patent against an order passed by a single Judge of the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing that these questions of law require authoritative adjudication to settle the principles governing rent determination and appellate jurisdiction in such disputes.
- Whether the High Court exercised judicial discretion correctly in reducing the monthly rent of a property in a second appeal?
- Does Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 render terms and conditions prior to transfer unsuitable?
- Is an appeal competent under the Letters Patent against an order passed by a single Judge of the High Court in a rent ejectment case?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. CORNELIUS, C. J.-A point of law arises in this case, viz. Whether in second appeal against an order of a - Rent Controller made in a petition for ejectment of a tenant, the High Court has exercised discretion in accordance with judicial principle, in reduc--ing to Rs. 20 per month, the rent of the property in question, which had been claimed at Rs. 120 per month by the landlord, had been fixed at Rs. 80 per month by the Rent Controller (tentatively, but it became permanent due to subsequent default of compliance by the tenant) and had been reduced to Rs. 50 per month in appeal by a District Judge.
2. There are objections raised to the grant of leave, on behalf of the landlord. Viz. :----
(1) that by the force of section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, the terms and condi--tions prior to transfer, are unsuitable and
(2) the order against which leave to appeal is sought being by a single Judge, an appeal was competent within the High Court; under the Letters Patent.
3. These are also questions of law, requiring decision. We grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security Rs: 1,000. Costs of this petition will be costs in the appeal. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.