1970 PLP 647 (SCMR)

M. R. KHAN, J.‑The sole question raised in this petition is whether a person who is statutory tenant under section 30 (1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, is liable to be ejected on the ground that he sublet the property after its transfer in favour of a claimant, although the notice of such transfer was not proved to have been served on the statutory tenant. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in a Regular Second Appeal, answered this question in affirmative and held that the statutory tenant, in the instant case, is liable to be ejected as it was found on evidence that he had, in fact, sublet the shop in dispute. The petitioner who was the statutory tenant in this case took a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge. The learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench armed the view of the learned Single Judge and maintained the order of ejectment. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a statutory tenant is not liable to be ejected on the ground of subletting unless a notice of the transfer of the property has been first served on him. This contention cannot be accepted as correct. According to section 3:) (1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensa tion and Rehabilitation) Act, the person in possession of an evacuee house or shop, shall be deemed to by a tenant of the transferee of that house or shop, as the case may be, on the same terms and conditions as to payment of rent or otherwise on which he held it immediately before the transfer. There is no dispute that the disputed shop here was transferred to Mst. Akbari Begum, the first respondent. The petitioner was in occupation of that shop from before its transfer. The petitioner, therefore, became a statutory tenant under Mst. Akbari Begum under the `deeming provision' of the said section 30 (1). In view of the proviso (b) to section 30 (1), the petitioner was not liable to be ejected for a period of six years. This protection period of six years is to be calculated from the date of the transfer of the shop provided a notice of the transfer has been given by the transferee to the tenant within one month of the transfer by registered post (acknowledgment due). If, however, no such notice has been given within one month of the transfer, the protection period of six years is to be counted from the date of receipt of such notice by the tenant. This legal position is abundantly clear from the proviso (b) to section 30 (1) read with subsection (2) of that section. Subsection (3) of section 30 has laid down the circumstances in which the tenant is liable to be ejected. This subsection has two clauses, namely, clause (i) and clause (ii). In the instant case, clause (ii) of subsection (3) is relevant. According to this clause (ii), nothing in the proviso (b) to subsection (1) of section 30 shall apply to a tenant who after the transfer, has sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the house or shop or any part thereof, or has committed acts which are destructive of or injurious to the property. Thus it appears that while the sending of a notice by registered post about the transfer is necessary for the determination of the protection period of six years, no notice of such transfer is required when the ejectment of a statutory tenant is claimed on the ground that he has sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the house or shop, as the case may be, or has committed acts which are destructive of or injurious to the property. The result is that when a statutory tenant has done anything in contravention of clause (ii)‑ of section 30 (3) including subletting, he is liable to eviction, whether or not notice of the transfer has been served on him. This is all the more clear from subsection (4) of section 30 which provides that on the expiry of the protection period mentioned in the proviso (b) to section 30 (1) or on the contravention of any of the provisions of subsection (3) of that section, whichever is earlier, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee and the tenant shall be regulated in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to such relation ship. Thus, the view taken by the learned Judges of the High Court is correct. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.