MUHAMMAD HANIF vs Ch. MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN AND 2 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Lahore, which had allowed a writ petition filed by a local respondent and set aside the transfer of a house previously made in favor of the petitioner, a claimant displaced person. The core legal question concerns whether the transfer of the property had become a past and closed transaction, and whether the respondent, having previously accepted the petitioner as his landlord and paid rent, was barred in law from disputing the petitioner's title. The Supreme Court held that there was force in the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the transaction being past and closed and the estoppel against disputing the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further.
- Whether a transfer of property in favor of a claimant displaced person constitutes a past and closed transaction that cannot be subsequently challenged?
- Is a tenant who has accepted a petitioner as his landlord and paid rent barred in law from disputing the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act?
- Can settlement authorities review a transfer order after the power of review has been taken away by law?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
- Section 116, Evidence Act 1872
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-Muhammad Hanif, petitioner, a claimant displaced person, is transferee of a house in the occupation of Ch. Muzaffar Hussain, respondent, a local. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner issued the P. T. O. In the name of the petitioner on 8-1-1960 whereupon he gave notice to the respondent under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, on 29-6-1960, and asked him to pay rent. The respondent who too had filed an LH Form, but was held to be ineligible for transfer thereupon accepted the petitioner as his landlord and paid rent to him from time to time. He also gave notice to the petitioner on 21-1-1962 for carrying out certain repairs to the house.
2. Subsequently there was default in payment of rent whereupon the petitioner filed application in the Court of the Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent. The application was on contest accepted and on 24-11-1962 the Controller gave directions to the respondent to deliver possession to the petitioner. In the meantime, the respondent had on 15-9-1961 applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for transfer of the house. He also moved the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 26-3-1962 for review of the order by which the house was transferred to the petitioner under the earmarking scheme. Review was refused by the Settlement Commissioner on 9-8-1962 as by then the power to review had been taken away.
3. The respondent thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 1875/R of 1962 in the High Court at Lahore which was allowed by a learned Single Judge and the transfer in favour of the petitioner was set aside and a direction was given to the Settlement authorities to transfer the house to the respondent.
4. Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by a Division Bench against which the petitioner now seeks leave to appeal.
5. It is contended that the transfer in favour of the petitioner had become a past and closed transaction which could not be subsequently challenged by the respondent. Further having accepted the petitioner as his landlord the respondent was in law barred from disputing his title (section 116, E. Act).
6. There is force in the contentions raised in support of the petition. Leave to appeal is granted.
7. Security-Rs. 500.