1983 PLP 564 (SCMR)

Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 3 and

4. Date of hearing : 19th April, 1983. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑The facts of the case have been succinctly summed up in the order of the High Court in these words.:‑ "A privately managed school by the name of "Farooq High School", housed in the property in dispute owned by respondent Ch. Nazir Ahmad, was with effect from 1‑10‑1972 taken over by the Provincial Government under' the. `Taking Over Privately Managed Schools and Colleges Regulation, 1972' (M. L. R. 118). On 19‑11‑1979, Chaudhry Nazir Ahmad, respondent, sold away the property to respondent Nos. 3 and

4. The latter served the District Education Officer with a notice asking him to vacate the property as it was bona fide required by them for their personal use. This notice went unheeded. The respondents, therefore, brought an ejectment petition, inter alias on the ground of personal need. As the relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied by the petitioners, the learned Rent Controller proceeded with the merits of the case and on evaluation of the evidence led by the parties, by his order dated 9‑5‑1982, came to the conclusion that the respondents needed the property in good faith for their personal occupation. Accordingly, he ordered the petitioners' eviction". This order was upheld on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge and the writ petition, directed against the said order having also failed hence this petition for leave to appeal. In support of this petition, the learned. counsel for the petitioners relied on a leave granting order of this Court in the case of Board of Foreign Missions v. Government of Punjab Etc. (P L D 1981 S C 332), whereby leave was granted to examine the view expressed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1981 to the effect that since the School was nationalized under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 all assets, including buildings stood, vested in the Provincial Government and were liable to be treated as a Government property. This Court, while granting leave, observed that the point that required examination was whether the building, which was owned by a private party and not by the School, could be treated as the property "attached to the School" and be said to have also become vested in the Provincial Government by virtue of the provisions of Paragraph 5 of Martial Law Regulation

118. The learned Judge, while deciding the instant case, held that the above leave granting order was of no benefit to the petitioners because, firstly; it did not "lay down any dicta but merely comprises a leave granting order", and secondly ; in the present case the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, which was the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, had not been denied rather it was asserted that the entire rent due to the landlord bad been deposited in the Court. He went on to add that since the respondents' bona fide personal use of the property was proved the ejectment order was rightly passed. We entirely agree with the above approach and might add that the leave granting order passed by this Court, if at all carried any weight, would weigh against the petitioners rather than in their favour, because this Court, in grant?ing leave, had considered that the view of the High Court to the effect that on issuance of the vesting notification even the building of the School became Government Property was a view that could not easily be accepted and, therefore, it required further consideration. Be that as it may, in this case the petitioners not having denied the relationship of landlord and tenant before the Rent Controller the ejectment orders could rightly have been passed. Hence no ground exists for interference with the orders to this effect passed by the Courts below. This petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay order granted on 13‑2‑1983, accordingly, stands vacated. Petition dismissed.