P L D 1979 Lahore 675 (PLP)

The facts giving rise to this civil revision are that a house was transferred to the respondent, Ghulam Muhammad, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. At the time of the transfer of the house to the respondent, it was occupied by the petitioners, Khalid Mahmood and six others. By virtue of the provisions of section 30 of the said Act, therefore, they became statutory tenants under the respondent. He moved an application under section l3 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for the ejectment of the petitioner from the house on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The petitioners resisted the application right upto the Supreme Court but without success.

2. During the execution of the order of ejectment passed against the petitioners, they objected that as the land under the house belonged to the Provincial Government and it was only the superstructure thereon which had been transferred to the respondent, they could not be ejected from the aforesaid land. Their objection was not sustained by the learned Civil Judge, who was seized of the execution proceedings. The petitioners, therefore, preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Civil Judge but it was dismissed by an Additional District Judge. Now, feeling dissatisfied with the order of the learned appellate Court, the petitioners have come up in revision to this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the respondent has no title to the land under the house in dispute he cannot remove them from that land in execution of the order of ejectment obtained by him. It is true that (according to what has been stated in the impugned order) only the superstructure of the house in question had been transferred to the respondent and the land under the superstructure, which belongs A to the Provincial Government, had not been transferred to him but it isl not physically possible to give effect to the order for the ejectment of the petitioners from the house by allowing them to retain possession of the, land underneath. If the petitioners are allowed to drag their feet as desired by them, it will set at naught the order of their ejectment which has stood the test of scrutiny right upto the Supreme Court, and their case will be exploited by many others to frustrate such orders. For instance, in the case of a building having more than one storey belonging to different persons a tenant in occupation of an apartment on a floor other than the ground floor would, in the event of an order of ejectment having been passed against him, refuse to vacate the apartment on the plea that the floor of his apartment happened to be the roof of another apartment which was not owned by the landlord who had obtained the order of ejectment against him. Similarly, if a person in adverse possession of any land builds a house thereon and leases out the same to a tenant he will not, in case an order of eviction is passed against the tenant, be able to secure execution of the order if the tenant declines to vacate the house on the ground that the land beneath the house did not belong to the person owning the house. Obviously, such like bottle-necks in the administration of law on the subject, namely, the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, would offend against the spirit of that law.

4. When I asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how the respondent should avail of the order for the ejectment of the petitioner from the house in dispute without disturbing their possession over the land underneath, he suggested that the respondent should demolish the house and take away its melba. This plea which, obviously, does not appeal to reason, came to me as a surprise. Since the petitioners have forfeited their right to remain in possession of the house in dispute it is they who should part with the superstructure of the house instead of its super-structure parting with them. There are no equities in their favour because they have lost the right to enjoy the house in dispute for having committed default in the payment of its rent. They are not the owners of the land under the house to dispute. This land belongs to the Provincial Government and it is for that Government to settle things with the respondent with a view to exercising their right of ownership in the land. The petitioners cannot therefore, be allowed to make capital out of the ownership of the land under the house in dispute for the purpose of avoiding implementation of the order for their ejectment from that house which has already become final.

5. In the result, I agree with the two Courts below that in execution of the order for the ejectment of the petitioners from the house in question they can be ejected therefrom, even though the land under the house belongs to the Provincial Government. The revision is dismissed in limine. S.? Q.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.