Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

Section: 2, 30

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 11th March 1969, in Second Appeal No. 69 of 1968). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958),----- ----- Ss. 2(4) & 30(1)-Big mansion although excluded from definition of "house" for purpose of its transfer under Displaced Persons(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, nonetheless does not cease to be house or .chop within purview of S. 30 of the Act-Person in possession of tenement in big mansion Becomes statutory tenant under transferee and entitled to benefits provided under S. 30 of the Act. Date of hearing : 9th January 1969. ORDER MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is barred by 34 days. On the cause shown, we condoned the delay, but on merits found no adequate reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The petitioner is the transferee of a big mansion under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The respondent who was in possession of one of the tenements became a statutory tenant by virtue of subsection (1) of section 30(1) of the aforesaid Act under the petitioner, but disputes soon arose between them as to the amount of rent which the petitioner was in law entitled to charge from the tenant. The municipal assessment of the tenement was increased at the instance of the petitioner from Rs. 20 to Rs. 65. He, accordingly, demanded rent at the enhanced rate from the respondent from the date of the transfer in his favour. The respondent preferred an appeal from the enhancement of the assessment to the Chairman, but in the meantime the petitioner filed the present application for his ejectment inter alia on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The appeal preferred by the respondent to the Chairman was subsequently allowed and the rent of the tenement in his possession was reduced to Rs. 20 p.m. Since the petitioner had already charged rent from the respondent at a higher rate, it was found that the respondent had committed no default in payment of the rent. Consequent upon it the applica tion for eviction of the respondent…