Case Details

Citation(s)
1983 SLG 506 1983 SLD 506 1983 PLD 96
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 3911 of 1982, decided on 4th October, 1982
MUHAMMAD 1LYAS, J
Qazi Abdul Hayee for Petitioner

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUEer

VS

MRs. ABDUL KARIM AND 2 others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-- -- S. 13 and Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30 read with Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)-Ejectment application filed after repeal of Act-Notice under S. 30, held, not necessary. Muhammad Ramzan v. Ch. Bashir Ahmad P L D 1981 S C 340 ref. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)- --- S. 13-A-Ejectment proceedings-Notice under S. 13-A required to be served if in case of existing tenancy relating to any property landlord replaced as a result of transfer of property-Transfer of property as evacuee property, held, does not attract provisions of S.13-A. ORDER The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent No. 1, Mrs. Abdul Karim, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, made an application for eviction of the petitioner, Muhammad Rafiq, from certain property. Admittedly, the said property was an evacuee property. It was transferred to the respondent under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the said Act. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner was occupying the property in question at the time of its transfer to her and, therefore, had become her statutory tenant. According to the respondent, he had not paid any rent and was, therefore, liable to be evicted. It was denied by the petitioner that there was relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. His plea, .however, did not find favour with the .Rent Controller, who was seized of the ejectment application, and since he had not pleaded payment or tender of any rent, the learned Rent Controller ordered his eviction without holding any further proceedings in the case. The petitioner went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but without success. He has, therefore, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. 2. It was not denied by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was transferee of the disputed property and that the same was occupied by the petitioner at the time of its transfer in her favour. It was,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492