Law: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963

Section: 24(3), 17

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

Section: 30(3)(b)

  (a) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (X of 1963), S. 24(3) Appeal---Cross-objection by respondent---Appellate authority bound to take notice of---Order of appellate authority would be without jurisdiction if it fails to apply its mind to such objection while disposing of appeal. (b) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (X of 1963), S. 17 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30(3)(b)---Person occupying evacuee property cannot be evicted at pleasure of transferee merely because occupant owns in urban area within same town another shop, without insti tuting proceedings in accordance with law. (c) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (X of 1963), S. 17 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30(1), proviso (b)--Ejectment application tinder S. 17---Objection that application was premature having been filed before expiry of period of protection of six years-- Pending appeal period of six years over---Held, Court could take into consideration, development taking place during pendency of proceedings and it would be unjust to dismiss ejectment appli cation in technical ground that it was filed prematurely. Dates of hearing: 17th, 18th and 25th May 1971.   JUDGMENT GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, J.---This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Peshawar, dated 14-5-68, by which the appeal of respondent No. 3 against the order of the Controller was allowed and it was directed that the petitioner should vacate and hand over the disputed shop premises to the said respondent within three months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the disputed shop No. C. A-168/400-403, situated at Jinnah Street, Peshawar Cantonment, was initially allotted to the petitioner as evacuee property on 14-10-1947. The petitioner continued to remain in possession of the said shop until 1962, when it was purchased by late Mst. Hanifa, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, in open public auction. After the auction sale in question was confirmed in favour of Mst. Hanifa she was issued the usual Provisional Transfer Order, whereafter she served notice upon the petitioner…