1986 PLP 846 (CLC)

Manzoor Elahi, respondent sought the petitioner's eviction from Quarter No. 41, forming part of Building No. SE‑V1‑29‑S‑24, commonly known as lhata Naurotam Lal, Barani Street, Allama lqbal tcoad, Garhi Shahu, Lahore, inter alia on the ground of default. The petitioner contested the ejectment petition and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. This denial was rested on the plea that the property inispute was an evacuee property and its sale in favour of the respondent's predecessor in interest, was not confirmed by the Custodian of Evacuee Properties, under the Evacuee Laws. The learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue, regarding relationship of landlord and tenant, between the parties fie decided this issue in favour of the respondent. As non‑payment of rent was not questioned by his order, dated 17‑5‑1979 while answering the preliminary issue, the learned Rent Controller, ordered the petitioner's eviction. Aggrieved by this order, he preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 22‑9‑1980. The validity of the orders of the Tribunals below is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. I have heard, the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. It is conceded by the sides that at one time, the entire building aforesaid, belonged to Naurotam Lal, a non‑Muslim evacuee. it is also not disputed that the entire building was disposed of by him through several sale transactions in favour of different persons; some of the transactions were approved by the Custodian but sanction to other sales was refused by him.

3. The petitioner's case, as observed above, is, that the quart in his possession forms part of the sale which was not confirmed I the Custodian and thus, he was not liable to pay the rent to t respondent, and even if he made some payments to the respondent for that matter to his predecessor‑in‑interest, that would be with any legal sanction, for if the property vested in the Custodian/ Settlement Department, he was bound to pay money due in respect of said proper to that department only. On the other hand on behalf of the responder it is contended that the sale concerning the transaction covering t property in dispute, was duly confirmed by the Custodian.

4. The petitioner's grievance, however, is, that the controver as to whether or not the quarter in his possession fell in that lot which sanction was accorded by the Custodian and thus, it became t property of the Muslim‑vendee, has not been determined by the Tribun below and in fact they did not advert to it, much-less to record a finding thereon. On this issue, upon the facts obtaining on recover the learned counsel for the respondent, did not have much in support the impugned orders. It being so, the learned counsel for the partie agree that the case shall have to be remanded to the learned Re Controller, for determination of the issue aforesaid and pass a for order on the respondent's ejectment petition in accordance with law.

5. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accepted, t impugned orders are declared to have been passed without laws authority and the case is sent back to the learned Rent controller with the direction that the respondent's ejectment petition shall treated as pending and disposed of afresh within a period of months in the light of the observations made above after holding inquiry as deemed fit by him. The parties are left to bear their own costs and directed appear before the learned District Judge, Lahore, on 27‑10‑1985, w shall assign this case to some Rent Controller, working under I jurisdiction. H.B.T. Case remanded