1983 PLP 2178 (CLC)

issues :‑‑ (1) Whether the petitioner has served the ‑notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 upon the respondent? . (2) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? (3) Relief. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 16th July, 1980; accepted the application of the respondent. The petitioner challenged the aforementioned order of his ejectment in appeal which was dis. missed vide the impugned order dated 1st December, 1980 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was not proved upon the petitioner, and therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not come into operation between the parties It was also submitted that the unani mous findings of the learned lower Courts holding that no notice under section 30 was necessary on account of the repeal of the Dis placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, are untenable.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other, hand, con tended that after the repeal of the evacuee laws no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was necessary. It was also submitted that evidence on record established that the property in dispute was transferred since long in favour of the respondent and P. T. O. as well as P. T. D. was also issued in his favour. The petitioner despite notice never paid rent to the respondent and refused to acknowledge him as his landlord.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and I find that the ejectment petition in this case was filed on 23rd July, 1978, i.e. after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. .The notice under section 30 of the repealed statute was, therefore, not necessary. In Muhammad Ramzan v. Ch, Bashir Ahmad (P L D 1981 S C 340) it was held:‑ "In fact it has not been found necessary to examine the other question because the controversy involved herein stands resolved on the basis of the correct understanding of the intention under lying the relevant provisions of section 30 itself. With these clarifications and in the light of the foregoing discussion, the argument of the learned counsel with regard to notice under section 30 and the application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act are repelled. The petitioner was not entitled to a notice nor the protection and the respondent was not under any liability to send such a notice to the petitioner before filing the eviction petition, because the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)' Act of 1958 having been repealed, it was not necessary." The case Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi v. Mst. Jaleesa Begum (P L D 1980 Lah. 443) was duly noticed in the above‑referred case.

6. In this view of the matter the orders passed by the learned lower Courts holding that notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was not necessary after the repeal of the statute are unexceptionable. The rent of the disputed property was admittedly not paid because the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. His ejectment from the disputed property was, therefore, in accordance with law.

7. There is no merit in this petition and the same is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. K. M. A. Writ petition dismissed.