1988 PLP 483 (CLC)

‑‑‑5. 115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Concurrent judgments of two Courts below decreeing suit for possession and mesne profits were found by High Court to be unexceptionable‑‑No case for interference of High Court having been made out, revision application against such judgments was dismissed in limine. Faiz Muhammad G. Soomro for Applicant Rahat Hussain Khan for Respondent. The suit filed by the respondent for possession and mesne profits was decreed by the learned trial Court by its judgment dated 28‑5‑1985. The applicant filed appeal against the said judgment which was dismissed by the order of the IInd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad dated 18‑11‑1986. The contention of Faiz Muhammad G. Soomro learned counsel for the applicant now is that the applicant was in possession of the property in question prior to its transfer to the respondent by Settlement Authorities and by virtue of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the applicant was the statutory tenant of the property and; therefore, the learned Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decree the suit of the respondent as only the learned Controller was competent to order ejectment of the applicant from the property. Admittedly this plea had not been raised by the applicant before the learned Civil Court as the only plea raised by him was that the respondent had taken possession of the property by fraud and when the premises had been transferred to the respondent, the applicant was already in the occupation of the premises. However, on the basis of evidence led before the learned Civil Court, both the learned subordinate Courts rejected such plea of the applicant. Mr. Rahat Hussain Khan learned counsel for the respondent who appeared on pre‑admission notice has pointed out that the plea now taken by the applicant before this Court is not tennable as the transfer of the disputed house in favour of the respondent had taken place in 1975 which was after 1‑7‑1974 when the evacuee laws were repealed by Act XIV of 1975. It was also pointed out that the applicant had in fact moved an application for amendment of the written statement in order to introduce this plea but such application was rejected by the learned trial Court and the order of the trial Court was not challenged further by the applicant. After perusal of the two Judgments of the learned subordinate Courts and hearing Mr. Rahat Hussain Khan, I find the judgments to be unexceptionable. No case for interference with the same has therefore been made out and this revision application is dismissed in limine. After dismissal of this application Mr. Faiz Muhammad has requested that the applicant .may be allowed some time to vacate the premises in dispute. Mr. Rahat Hussain has consented to two months' time in this regard. It is, therefore, directed by consent that the applicant shall not be ejected from the property in question until the expiry of two months from today. H . B . T . /M‑347/ K Petition dismissed