1989 PLP 3070 (MLD)

Ss.42 & 54--Suit for declaration and permanent injunction--Defendant Authority itself admitted that notice served on plaintiff was technically defective and due to that defect no action would be. taken against plaintiff in pursuance of that notice--Plaintiff in view of said admission, held, was entitled to declaration that notice was illegal--Authority thus was restrained from taking any action against plaintiff in pursuance of that notice. Khalid M. Ishaque for Plaintiffs. Raja M. Irshad for Defendants. Date of hearing: 12th March, 1989. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff No.l claims to be a tenant of the plaintiff No. 2 since July, 1985. The plaintiff No. 2 holds a permanent leasehold right in respect of plot No. 20-B South Seaview Avenue, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi with structure thereon. The plaintiff No.2 purchased the structure and the property on or about 1970 and started using the premises as a residence for herself and for her family. The plaintiff No. 2 in view of the situation that has developed as stated in the plaint inquired from the defendant No.l regarding commercialisation of the property of Sunset Boulevard with particular reference to the property in dispute. It is alleged that plaintiff No.2 was informed by the office of the defendant that the commercial use of the properties on the main roads of Defence Housing Authority was a fait accompli and a policy decision in that regard would soon be announced. It is also claimed that the plaintiff was informed that a number of plots originally allotted for residential purpose have been regularised for commercial use. The plaintiff No.2 rented out the premises for use as an office in 1985,to plaintiff No.l. The defendant No.l by letter dated 29-2-1988 asked the plaintiff No.2 to show cause as to why in terms of lease `A' the lease may not be cancelled for commercialisation of the premises. The plaintiff No.2 informed the defendant that the lease in his favour was not `A' lease. It is alleged that the plaintiff No.2 was prepared to pay the charges for temporary commercialisation of the said property. The defendant No.l published a show cause notice in the newspaper dated 15-5-1988 calling upon the defendant No. 2 and other co-owners to stop using the premises for commercial use. By letter dated 28-2-1989 the plaintiff No. 1 was served with a notice addressed to defendant No.2 informing the cancellation of lease `A' by way of forfeiture. The plaintiff has claimed that the action taken by the defendant No. 1 is illegal. They have therefore, filed this suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Mr. Raja M. Irshad the learned counsel for the defendant No.l has appeared and made a statement that due to certain technical defect in the notice dated 27-2-1989 which is Annexure `G' to the plaint, the defendant No.l will not take any action against the plaintiff in pursuance of this, notice. In view of this admission made by the defendant No.l, the plaintiff is entitled to declaration that notice dated 27-2-1989 Annexure `G' to the plaint is illegal and of no legal effect. The defendant No.l is restrained from taking any action in pursuance of the said notice against the plaintiffs. The suit is decreed. Injunction application is accordingly disposed of. H.B.T./D-51/K Suit decreed.