1982 PLP 2357 (CLC)

(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) S. 13 and Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 106 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Ejectment challenged on ground of notice under S. 106, Transfer of Property Act having not been given to petitioners‑Facts stated in writ petition not alleged by petitioner in his reply to ejectment application‑Plea, held, cannot be examined in Constitutional petition‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.

199. Syed Wahid‑ur‑Rehman Gillani for Petitioners. This writ petition by Mst. Sughran Begum and others is directed against an, order of a Rent Controller whereby they were directed vacate certain premises. Their appeal against the order of ejectment was also dismissed by an Additional District Judge.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not allowed an opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal of documents marked as 'A', 'B' and 'C' although, vide order, dated the 12th December, 1979, passed by this Court in S.A.O. No. 185 of 1979, they were allowed to produce that evidence. The reasons given by the learned Additional District Judge for not allowing the petitioners to produce evidence in rebutted find mention in paragraph 11 of the impugned order and they read as follows :‑ "The perusal of the record shows that the documents relied upon by the appellant in his additional evidence at the stage of firs appeal were never admitted into evidence. These documents were: marked as A, B & C and were never properly exhibited, as these were the photostat copies of the original documents. The learned counsel for the appellant agreed that these documents could not be read in evidence. He did not express any desire that these docu ments should be properly exhibited. That being so, practically the entire evidence produced as additional evidence at the stage or first appeal was to be ignored. Thus there was no occasion for allowing an opportunity to the respondents to produce any evidence in rebuttal. Consequently the case shall have to be decided on the basis of the evidence which had already come on record at to trial." This reasoning of the learned Additional District Judge is quite plausible. It is, therefore, not open to any legitimate exceptions.

2. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that not under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, ought to have been given to the petitioners as explained in ground (c) of the Writ a Petition. The facts stated in the said ground were admittedly not alleged in the petitioner's reply to the ejectment application. The plea based on the said Act cannot, therefore, be examined in connection with) this Constitutional petition.

3. Resultantly, the petition in hand fails. It is dismissed in limine. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed,