| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5091 = 1966 SLD 5091 = 1966 PLD 159 |
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 333 of 1965, decided on 3rd May 1966.
Presented By: Anwarul Haq and Shakirullah Jan, JJ
Mian Muhammad Yunas for Petitioner. Peer Bakhsh Khan for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
Respondents Nos. 6 and 7: Ex parte.
Writ Petition No. 333 of 1965, decided on 3rd May 1966.
Presented By: Anwarul Haq and Shakirullah Jan, JJ
Mian Muhammad Yunas for Petitioner. Peer Bakhsh Khan for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
Respondents Nos. 6 and 7: Ex parte.
NUR SHAH-Petitioner
VERSUS
AZMAT ILAHI AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963
Section: 3(b)
(a) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963), S. 3 (b) Word "property"Interpretation- Mere fact that land in Canton ment area on which buildings are constructed by private parties is owned by Central Government-Does not make such buildings "property" of Central Government-Things intended to be included in term "property" are buildings and not land-Exemption clause cannot be extended to include within its purview private buildings constructed on Government land-Rent Controller and Appellate Authority have jurisdiction to regulate relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of such buildings. Where it was contended that--- as the land in Cantonment area on which the buildings stand is admittedlythe property of the Central Government, it, therefore, follows that the buildings themselves have to be deemed to be the property of that Government and that being so, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller would stand ousted; and alternatively, the term "property" used in clause (b) of section 3 of the Cantonment RentRestriction Act, 1963 being in terms of extensive and comprehensive application, it would exclude the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in the case of those buildings in which the Central Government has property rights of any kind whatsoever, whether in the site or in the superstructure: Held, the mere fact that the buildings in dispute are constructed on land owned by the Central Government, would not make them the property of that Government. The buildings would still remain the property of the private parties who have constructed them at their own expense. Although the land belongs to the Central Government, yet the buildings have been constructed thereon by the private parties concerned and have not been handed over to the Central Govern ment after construction. In these circumstances, by no process of reasoning can these buildings be treated or deemed to be the property of the Central Government, which merely remains the owner of the land under them. In clause (b) of section 3 of the Act the term `property' has been used not to indicate an indefinite right of…