P L D 1955 Sind 15 (PLP)

CONSTANTINE, C J.--‑This application is concerned with the first floor of certain premises in Shikarpur Colony. The pro perty was allotted to the applicant on 5th November, 1947, by the Rent Controller under the Sind Rent Restriction Act then in force, and the applicant has been in possession ever since. The occasion for this application is that on the 14th July, 1954, he has been served with ejectment notice by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner Karachi. The events leading up to this are that there have been disputes between the applicant on the first floor and the person occupying the ground floor of the premises On 22nd January, 1954, the latter's son, Abdul Majid, applied to the Rehabilitation authorities that the appli cant was about to construct his own bungalow elsewhere and was about to leave' the premises after installing some other' person on receipt of pugree. The Rehabilitation authorities sent this to the applicant, and he replied that the information was totally false. Inquiry was, however, made by the Rehabi litation Authorities and as a result the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner addressed a notice dated 14th May, 1954 to the applicant stating "Whereas the property in question has been held to be an evacuee property, and you have been held to be an unauthorized person to hold the property in question by the Rehabilitation Commissioner for the Federal Capital area, Karachi, as you have constructed your own house." This notice called upon the applicant within a week of the receipt of it to show cause why he should not be ejected summarily. The applicant as a consequence filed objections. He contested both the view that his occupation was unautho rized and also the view that he was unsuitable owing to the construction of another house. His case was that his house was not yet ready. The Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner made a long note upon the subject and on the back of it he stated that he had discussed the matter with the Rehabilitation Commissioner who had been pleased to order that since Dr. Yar Muhammad had constructed his own house he should be ejected from the property in question so that it may be utilized for rehabilita tion of a deserving refugee. The notice of ejectment dated the 14th July, mentioned above, was then issued to the applicant. The advocates for both parties have considered the case in the alternative. The first alternative is whether the appli cant was an authorized occupant of the premises. The date of allotment is the 5th of November, 1947, and that is subse quent to the 1st of March, f947, on which date evacuee, property is to vest retrospectively in the Custodian. The applicant has therefore no title previous to the vesting of the property in the Custodian. But it is not necessary for us to consider whether in the circumstances of the case the allot ment by the Rent Controller was adopted by the Rehabilitation authorities. For even if as contended by Mr. Wahiduddin this allotment is to be regarded as an allotment by the Rehabilitation authorities, either generally or in the special circum stances of this case, yet it appears to us that the case is governed by section 8 (2) (b) of Ordinance 19/1948. This gives the Rehabilitation authorities power to eject persons whom they subsequently find to be unsuitable. It is important to note first that the section mentions the opinion of the Rehabilitation authorities and not the opinion of the Court, and secondly that in proceedings for writs of this nature, the Court is not to determine whether ‑the authority was B correct in its view or not, as if this Court were an Appellate Court. In the present cage, it is admitted that a bungalow is under construction by the applicant, and it appears to us entirely a matter within the jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation authorities to determine whether this was sufficient reason to make the applicant unsuitable. Mr. Wahiduddin argued that the principles of natural justice had been offended in this case since after receipt of the notice to chew cause, he made representations in which he asked that his advocate should be heard. His advocate was never heard. We were not shown any rule requiring counsel to be heard, and though the hearing of advocates may be a matter of right in Courts of law, it cannot be said that an administrative tribunal, even acting judicially, must adopt the practice of the Courts or that failure 'to hear counsel vitiates an inquiry. Mr. Wahiduddin has further argued that notice was given by the Assistant Commissioner whereas in effect the order was made by the Commissioner, and that he should have been given notice that the order would be made by the Commissioner and that representation should be made to the Commissioner. Since, however, the file containing the representation did, we must presume, reach the Commissioner, and since on record we, have the note of the Assistant Rehabilita tion Commissioner made to the Commissioner reproducing very fairly the substance of the representation, we think there is nothing in this point. Mr. Wahiduddin has also argued that notice given to him of which the relevant words have been reproduced above, left the impression upon his client that the only question was whether he was an unauthorized occupant. Considering that the words in ink were added "as you have constructed your own house," it appears to us that this addition must have been understood by the applicant as raising the question of his suitability, and the representation dealt with this question. The application is therefore dismissed with costs. A. H. Application dismissed.