Ch. NASIR AHMAD vs Haji MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an eviction order passed against a tenant by a Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions were whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed, specifically regarding the service of statutory notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, and whether the tenant was denied a fair opportunity to argue his case. The Supreme Court held that the finding regarding the service of notice was a question of fact already determined by the lower courts, confirming the existence of a statutory tenancy. Regarding the procedural objection, the Court found that the tenant had been provided ample opportunity to present his arguments in the appellate and revisional stages, rendering the initial grievance insignificant. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the eviction order while granting the tenant three months to vacate the premises, subject to the regular payment of rent.
- Does the service of notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 establish the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Can a finding of fact regarding the service of notice be challenged in a second appeal?
- Does the failure to argue a case before a Rent Controller invalidate an eviction order if the party was heard in subsequent appellate proceedings?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
KARAM ELAAEE CHAUHAN, J.-Haji Muhammad Ismail (respondent) (landlord) filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, before a Rent Controller, for eviction of Ch. Nasir Ahmad (tenant) from house No. S-1-116-S-12, Katcha Nisbat Road, Lahore. The petition was accepted by the learned Rent Controller, who, by means of his order dated 16-12-1976, directed the tenant to hand overpossession of the house in dispute to the landlord within a period of one month. The tenant filed an appeal, but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 30-6-1977. The tenant then filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 436 of 1977 which also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 31-5-1978 in limine. The tenant has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties, and as such, no order of eviction could be passed against his client. The contention has no merit. The tenant had taken an objection before the learned Rent Controller that he had not been served with a statutory notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act XXVII of 1958 and on that basis it was being pleaded that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and that consequently the Rent Controller also had no jurisdiction to try the case. All the Courts below have found that the notice was in fact served on the tenant. This is a question of fact and was rightly maintained by the learned Single] Judge of the High Court in the course of second appeal before him. In, the face of the aforesaid finding, it is obvious that the statutory tenancy did exist between the landlord who was transferee of the property under the aforesaid Act and the petitioner.
3. The next point argued by the learned counsel was that his client had not been given an opportunity to argue the case before the learned Rent Controller. Apart from the fact that the petitioner did rot appear on the date of hearing for the arguments fixed by the learned Rent Controller, the point is of no significance inasmuch as be fully argued the case before the learned Additional District Judge, submiued written arguments and was also heard by the learned Single Judge in the High Court in detail. The learned Single Judge, in the circumstances was justified in not attaching an importance to the objection raised, especially when it has not been shown to us that any point raised by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge 'or in the course of second appeal has not been given due attention or has not been dealt with.
4. No other point was argued before us.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. The petitioner is given three months' time to vacate the house. He should, however, pay the rent for this period regularly.