1976 PLP 445 (SCMR)

DURAB PATEL, J.‑The dispute in this petition for leave relates to a pro perty in Campbellpur which was evacuee property. After settlement opera tions began, it was transferred to the respondent who sent the usual notice under section 30 of the West Pakistan Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) tact, 1959 (hereinafter called the said Act) to the petitioners but as they did not pay rent be filed an eviction application against them ill the Court of Rent Controller, Campbellpur. The petitioners challenged the respondent s title but after prolonged liti gations this issue was derided in the respondent's favour, therefore, the Rent Controller passed the usual order for this deposit of tentative rent under sub section (6) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordi nance. As the petitioners did not comply with this order, their defence was struck off but they challenged this order on the ground that they had not been served with the statutory notices under section 30 of the said Act. Their appeal was allowed and the case was remanded again to the Rent Con troller for the determination of this issue. The respondent proved that he bad sent the statutory notices by registered post to both the, petitioners and that the first petitioner, who was the husband of the second petitioner, had received both these notices. Although the respondent had even examined the post man who had served these notices neither of the petitioners went into the witness‑box nor did they produce any evidence. Therefore, the Rent Controller held that the petitioners had Keen served with these statutory notice, under section 30 of the said Act. The petitioners again went in appeal to the District Court against this order but the appeal was dismissed and by his order dated 24‑2‑1974 the learned District Judge ordered the eviction of the petitioners, therefore, they filed a second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed in limine on 3‑5‑1976. The petitioners have now come in a petition for special leave against this order of 3rd May, 1976 and Mr. S. M. Chaudhry's only contention was that the second petitioner had not been served the statutory notice under sec tion 30, of the said Act. But the respondent bad proved that be had sent these notices by registered post to both the petitioners and that the first peti tioner had collected the second petitioner's notice from the post‑man and signed his acceptance for the same on the second petitioner's behalf. On this evidence the three Courts held that the second petitioner had been properly served with the statutory notice and as the second petitioner did not give evidence the inference thus drawn against her by the three Courts was the only possible and correct inference. We are satisfied that the second peti tioner was served with the statutory notice in the manner prescribed under section 30 of the said Act and no exception can be taken to the view in the judgment under appeal. The petition is without merit and is dismissed Learned counsel requests that we should give time to the petitioners for vacating the demised premises as is may not be possible for them to find out accommodation immediately. If the petitioners deposit the arrears of rent and the current rent they will not be evicted for one month but if they do not pay the arrears of rent and the current rent they will be liable to eviction immediately. Petition dismissed.