| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 2026 1961 SLD 2026 = 1961 PLD 157 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1960, decided on 10th January 1961.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle Akbar and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, (Miss R. S. Qari, Advocate Supreme Court, with him), instructed by Messrs Siddiq & Co., Attorneys for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1960, decided on 10th January 1961.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle Akbar and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, (Miss R. S. Qari, Advocate Supreme Court, with him), instructed by Messrs Siddiq & Co., Attorneys for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent
Sheikh ATA ELAHI-Appellant
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SIALKOT-Respondent
Law: Punjab Municipal Act (III of 1911)
Section:
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 15th May 1956, in Regular First Appeal No. 1 of 1954). Punjab Municipal Act (III of 1911)----- -----S. 114-Whether requires option to be given to owner of building either to repair it or demolish it. The Municipal authorities having condemned a building as dangerous issued to its owner a notice under section 114 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, calling upon him to demolish the building. It was urged that the notice was illegal and not binding on the owner because the authorities had failed to give an option to the owner to repair the building as an alternative to its demolition. Section 114 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, it was urged, required an option to be given to the owner of the building either to repair it or to demolish it and that it was not open to the Municipal authorities to decide which one of the two alternatives should be adopted. Held, that the provision of section 114 has been inserted in the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, in the public interest and that interpretation of the provision should be favoured which, in accordance with the well-recoginsed rule of construction, suppresses the mischief aimed at and advances the remedy therefore. The right of choice of one of the alternative modes of proceeding envisaged by the provision of section 114 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 is, therefore, vested in the public authority rather than in the private owner. Petman v. King-Emperor 23 P R 1905 (Cr.) ; Hazuri Mal v. King Emperor 18 P R 1908 (Cr.) and Mian Musharaff Shah v. Emperor A I R 1940 Pesh. 16 held wrongly decided. Byramji Pudamji v. Emperor 52 I C 665 ; Emperor v. Bastiaa Andradez A I R 1934 Bom. 213 and Dwarka Mahton v. Patna City Municipality A I R 1936 Pat. 282 approved. Date of hearing : 10th January 1961. JUDGMENT S. A. RAHMAN, J.-This is a certificated appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of West Pakistan; by which the decision of the trial Court was partly reversed and partly varied, on appeal. The facts giving rise to the litigation may be briefly…