| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 3164 1971 SLD 3164 = 1971 PLD 217 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Second Appeal No. 424 of 1967, decided on 9th January 1970.
Presented By: Ghulam Rasool K. Shaikh, J
Hassan Inamullah for Appellants. S. Zaheer Hassan for
Respondent.
Second Appeal No. 424 of 1967, decided on 9th January 1970.
Presented By: Ghulam Rasool K. Shaikh, J
Hassan Inamullah for Appellants. S. Zaheer Hassan for
Respondent.
ABDUL SAYEED AND ANOTHER-Appellants---Defendants
VERSUS
ABDUL SALAM FAROOQUI-Respondent ---Plaintiff
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
Section: 30
(a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30---Notice----Transferee not mentioning rate of rent in notice---Such omission by itself, held, does not render notice invalid. According to section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensa tion and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, what is required is that the landlord should intimate the tenant about the transfer of the premises in his favour and make a demand of rent. It is not landlord should intimate the tenant about the transfer of the premises in his favour and make a demend of rent. It is not necessary to show the rate of rent in the notice. The necessity of showing the rate of rent arises only in case the landlord proceeds to demand the rent at the enhanced rate on the basis of the latest municipal assessment. In case the landlord does not show any rate of rent it can only be presumed that he has not elected to exercise the right of claiming the rent at the enhanced rate and, therefore, the tenant is bound to pay or tender the rent which he was either paying to the Custodian Department or was fixed by that Department. Thus the mere omission to state the rate of rent would not invalidate the notice. Mian Rehmatali v. Khadija Hakim P L D 1967 Lah. 29 rel. (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30---Notice---Transferee serving notice on occupant---Occupant thereafter contesting transfer of house before Settlement Authorities and matter remaining pending in appeals and revision---Contention that notice having been served during pendency of appeals and revision ipso facto lost its force and fresh notice after final order regarding transfer of house, was imperative---Notice, in circumstances, held, good and no fresh notice needed---Original notice, at the most, remained suspended during pendency of appeals and revision and cannot be deemed to have become infructuous or invalid. Date of hearing : 16th December 1969. JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the Rent Controller, Karachi. The respondent is the transferee of the premises from the…