1983 PLP 2504 (CLC)

Date of hearing : 24th October, 1982. This judgment shall dispose ref Writ Petitions Nos. 22/11‑71, 78/11‑71 and 431/ R‑71, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. 1t shall however, remain on the file of Writ Petition No. 22/11‑71.

2. The petitioners are in possession of certain business premises, in Sir Ganga Ram Building, Shahrah‑i‑Quaid‑i‑Azam, Lahore as tenants under the Evacuee Trust Board. They are aggrieved by an order passed by the Chairman of the Board which was communicated to them under the Boards letter No. GR‑T/70/l024, dated 19th November, 1970 whereby with effect from 1st July, 1969, the rent of the ground floor was fixed at the rate of Re. I per sq. ft. and of the basement, gallery, stores, etc. at the rate of Re. 0/25 per sq. ft. Earlier some tenants under the Board challen ged the fixation of the rent of the demised premises through invocation of writ jurisdiction. These writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 13th June, 1969 and the case remanded to the Chairman of the Board. It was under these circumstances that the litter in exercise of the powers vested in him under Para. 18 of the Scheme known as 'scheme for the Management and Disposal of Property attached to Charitable, Religious or Educational Trusts or Institutions (1960)', passed the impugned order, enhancing the rent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioners in W. P. No. 431/11‑

71. However, instead of dismissing the same in default it is also decided on merits.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that para. IS does not confer any power on the Chairman to enhance the rent. A refe rence was also made to section 16‑A (i) of the Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 to contend that according to the connotation of the terms `administration' and 'management' as given in the Black's Law Dictionary. the power to enhance the rent cannot be spelt out therefrom. Likewise the dictionary meaning of the expression, namely, efficient maintenance, control, administration' employed in para, 18 of the Scheme were relied upon, to highlight the submission that the respondents, assumption, of power to increase the rent was without lawful authority, Mr. Mumtaz Hussain, who argued the main case also drew a comparison between the powers of the Board under Scheme and the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act. 1975 and pointed out that the powers to assess and re‑assess the rent which previously was not available to the Board, for the first time, was specifically conferred on it under clause (f) of subsection (2) of section 4 of the Act and richly laid hand on the rule laid down in Heydon's case. The learned counsel also expres sed a grievance that the impugned order does not disclose any basis for assessment of the rent and the assessment made by the Excise and Taxa tion Department was unjustifiably ignored. It was also urged that the directions given by the High Court in the order dated 13th June, 1969 were complied with.

4. This judgment need * not be burdened with the dictionary meaning of the expressions used in section 16‑A and Para. 18 of the Scheme, or the discussion of the rule of construction of Statute referred to by the learned counsel. The question as to the Board's authority to enhance thse rent under Para. 18, was examined in detail. by Aftab Hussain J, in Sh. Muhammad Harsif v. Evacuee Property, Trust .Board (1) wherein it was maintained that : "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 emanates from the efficient administration of the property. It is not, therefore, correct to say that ‑ho Board had no power` under that Scheme to enhance the tent." I have not been persuaded to differ with the view taken in this judg ment and respectfully agree with the same.

5. The learned counsel could not refer to any provision; of law to shown that the assessment made under the Urban Immovable Properties Tax Act, is binding on the Board: As regards the basis of the assessment it is a obvious from the impugned order that the rent of one of the premises in the same building, fetched through auction, was on the higher side. Though this could legitimately sere as criterion for fixing the rent for other premises yet the respondent chose to adhere to the commitment made by the Department before the High Court is the order dated 13th June, 1969. There is also no merit in the submission, that this order was not complied with. It is thus clear that the impugned order was passed with lawful authority. There is no merit in these writ petitions which are dismissed but with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.