| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 79 1971 SLD 79 1971 PLD 476 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 29-D to 33-D of 1970, decided on 26th April 1971. dates of hearing : 17th and 18th February 1971. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 9th March 1970, in Writ Petitions Nos. 28, 29,
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., M. R. KHAN AND WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeals Nos. 29-D to 33-D of 1970, decided on 26th April 1971. dates of hearing : 17th and 18th February 1971. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 9th March 1970, in Writ Petitions Nos. 28, 29,
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., M. R. KHAN AND WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND 2 others
VS
Messrs ALLAWALA & CO. AND others
Law:
Section:
(a) East Bengal Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Act, 1952 (X of 1953) read with Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 106-Lease-Termination of tenancy- Notices under S. 106 issued by an unauthorised person-Held, do not have effect of terminating a tenancy. (b) East Bengal Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) East Act, 1952 (Xrof 1953), Ss. 2 (c) & 5-- "Unauthorised occupant"-Initial entry of tenant into premises with permission of owner-Such tenant, held, not an "unauthorised occupant" and not liable to summary ejectment by force. Under the general law a tenant whose tenancy has been determined becomes a trespasser after the determination of the tenancy and is liable to be ejected by a suit, but such a tenant is not an "unauthorised occupant" within the meaning of section 2(c) and is not liable to be summarily ejected by force inasmuch as his initial entry into the premises was with the permission of the owner thereof. The same is the case here with regard to the respondents. They entered into the premises with the consent of the owner, and have been in possession thereof throughout in spite of the services of notices under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Ruhul Islam, Advocate-General East Pakistan instructed by A. M. Khan Chowdhury, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in all the Appeals). M. A. Aleem-al-Rajee, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdur Rab II, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in C. A. 29-D/ 70). Ataur Rahman Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Shamsul Huq Chowdhury and Uumayun Kabir Chowdhury, Advocates Supreme Court with him) instructed by Aminul Huq, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in C. As. 30-D to 33-D/70). Dates of hearing : 17th and 18th February 1971. JUDGMENT M. R. KHAN, J.-These five appeals, by special leave, involve common questions of law, and this judgment will dispose of all of them. The appeals have arisen under the following circumstances: The holding No. 9, Anderkilla, J. C. Road, Chittagong, popularly known as "Musafirkhana Building", among other lands and buildings, had been owned by the Chittagong Muslim Institute. All the properties of the Chittagong…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492