1980 PLP 105 (CLC)

S. 25-Ejectment of tenant, summarily-.Such powers, held, not available to Evacuee Trust Board-Act confers such powers on Chairman, Administrator, a Deputy Administrator or Assistant Administrator. Writ Petition No. 517 of 1964 and Abdur Rahman v. Evacuee Property Trust Board P L D 1964 Lab. 729 ref. Inayat Ullah v. M. A. Khan P L D 1964 S C 126 distinguished. Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 9th June,. 1979. The petitioner is in possession of a Flat and a Baithak in Property No. S-III-21-S-4-6, New Anarkali, Lahore, which is vested in the Evacuee Property Trust Board. The petitioner was paying a . sum of Rs. 12 as rent to the Rehabilitation Department. On the 21st March, 1969, he was directed to clear the arrears of Rs. 1,926 which had accrued due against him at a monthly rent of Rs. 18 (Annexure 'A'). The petitioner however, paid the arrears of rrnt at. the rate of Rs. 12 per month (Annexure 'B'). On the 2nd June, 1969, a new calculation was made of the arrears and this calculation was in accordance with the calcula tion of the petitioner. However, he was directed to pay rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 51 per month from the 1st of April, 1969. He was asked to convey his acceptance as early as possible so that his tenancy could be regularised and a fresh rent deed could be executed by him, (Annexure'C'). It appears from Annexure'D' that he did not comply with this condition and did not convey his acceptance to the enhancement of the rent to a sum of Rs. 51 per month. The rent was therefore, further enhanced to a sum of Rs. 63.75 from the 1st of July, 1969, 2. Hence this petition, 3. This petition was filed on the 9th January, 1971, after more than 1 1/2 years of the last notice (Annexure D'). The petition is, therefore belated and is liable to be dismissed for this reason. 4. Even on merits the petitioner has no case at least regarding the enhancement by Annexure 'C' though the subsequent enhancement (Annexure ' D') may be deemed to be penal in character. No specific power of either enhancement or ejectment is provided in the scheme for disposal of property attached to Charitable, Religious or Educational Trust or Institutions which was applicable at the time of issuance of the impugned notices. However, there is a general power in clause 18 thereof which provides that "the general supervision of the property shall vest in the Board which shall do all things considered by it to be necessary, proper and expedient for the efficient maintenance, control, administration and disposal of such property". 5. Administration includes the power to grant lease. But this power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The lease must be granted rent at a rate which accords with the rent prevailing at the time. It does not contemplate grant of long terms leases on the same rent since the rate of rent is likely to fluctuate in favour of landlords. In Shri Tikamdas Hiranand and three others v. Divisional Evacuee Trust Com mittee, Karachi Zone, Karachi and 4 others (1973 S C M R 315 ) the power of grant of usual or customary lease as distinguished from a long term lease of 99 years was recognised. 6. This being so efficient administration' will include management of the property in a manner so as to clog all loopholes which may cause loss of income or damage to the property and to take steps for improving inter alia its income, no doubt without adopting a posture of harshness and mercilessness towards the tenants. The power of enhancing the rent thus amanates from the efficient administration of the property. It is not, therefore, correct to say that the Board had no power under that Scheme to enhance the rent. 7. In Writ Petition No. 517 of 1964 a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan had taken the view that the power to 'maintain, control and administer' includes the power to eject a person in possession. This was explained in Abdur Rahman v. Evacuee Property Trust Board (P L D 1964 Lah. 729). It was held that the power to eject an occupant summarily vests in the Chief Settlement Commissioner who can exercise that power on' a reference or request by the Evacuee Trust Board. 8. But this argument against the power of the Evacuee Trust Boar to eject an occupant of Evacuee Trust Property summarily is no longer valid in view of section 25 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management of and Disposal) Act, 1975, which confers such a power on the Chairman, an Administrator, a Deputy Administrator or an Assistant Administrator. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Inayat Ullah v. M. A. Khan (P L D 1964 S C 126) that the word 'control' in section 6 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, does not vest the Chief Administrator Auqaf with power to prohibit for all time established religious practice, held in Waqf Property. From this the learned counsel sought to infer that the power of ejectment was also not included in the word 'control'. But as stated above the Scheme did not vest the Board with power of 'control' only. The other power is that of `administration'. Moreover, this authority is clearly distinguishable since though the Waqf Property was taken over by the Chief Administrator, Auqaf, but no jurisdiction was conferred upon him to prohibit the religious practices. In fact, the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, was promulgated only for changing the administration of the property and transfering it from the Mutwallies to the Chief Administrator, Auqaf. It was in these circum stances, that the word 'control' was interpreted in that Act. 10. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed but since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, I have the parties to bear their own costs. M. A. K Petition dismissed.