P L D 1971 Lahore 180 (PLP)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4th June 1969, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he armed the order of the learned Rent Controller, dated 22‑1‑69 directing the ejectment of the appellant under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, (hereinafter called the Ordinance) from flat No. 38 in property No. S. 37‑R‑161/S‑37 R. 155 Beadon Road, Lahore.

2. The facts which constitute the background are that the respondents claimed that they were the transferees of the property in dispute from the Settlement Department, that the appellant was occupying two rooms in fiat No. 38 at the time of transfer and was served with a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) intimating the fact of transfer and calling upon him to pay rent. The appellant, however, failed to pay or tender any rent despite the receipt of the said notice and had thus committed default. A petition under section 13 of the Ordinance for his ejectment was, therefore, filed.

3. The appellant besides raising certain factual pleas to the effect that he had not received the notice and that he was not living in the property from which his ejectment was sought also raised the question that the respondents were not transferees of the premises in dispute and no valid notice under section 30 of the Act had been served on him. Both the Courts below have held that the notice was received by him and that he was occupying two rooms in the flat in his independent capacity. It was also held that he had never paid any rent, this fact was even admitted by him. On the question whether the property stood transferred in favour of the respondents, it has been held that no P. T. Os. are issued in connection with the transfer of big mansions and the property stood transferred to the respondents on 24‑8‑60 vide letter Exh. P.

1. Mention was made also of the fact that notional possession of the property was delivered to them on 14‑10‑65 (Certificate Exh. P. 3) as also of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Ind.) dated 9‑12‑67 on the subject of clarification of titles of the transferees of the property (Exh. P. 4) which stated that the property in question was provisionally transferred in favour of the res pondents vide memo. dated 24‑8‑60 (Exh. P. 1).

4. In support of this appeal Mr. Javid‑ur‑Rahman attempted to assail the findings on the questions of fact. He has also contested the finding that the respondents are transferees of the premises in dispute. After hearing the learned counsel, we find no ground to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and affirmed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. The objection that the respondents cannot be the "transferees" of the property in question is, however, more serious.

5. The question whether the present respondents are entitled to be treated as "transferees" of the property for purposes of section 30 of the Act on the basis of the documents Exhs. P. 1, P. 3 and P. 4 issued by the Settlement Department fell for consideration in L. P. A. No. 242/62, which has been heard along with this appeal. I have examined the above question in detail in the aforementioned appeal and have come to the conclusion that the letter dated 24‑8‑60 (Exh. P. 1) is not sufficient to constitute the respondents either as "transferees" or "provisional trans ferees" of the property in question with the result that the occupants of the property cannot be deemed to have become their statutory tenants. In that appeal it has been ordered that the case should be remanded to the learned Rent Controller for allowing the parties to lead evidence on the questions whether the full price of the property was paid before "notional possession" was ordered to be delivered to the respondents by virtue of the document Exh. P. 3 dated 14‑10‑65 and whether the settlement fees was paid before that date and whether any entry mentioned in rule 3 of the Permanent Transfer Rules has been made in the relevant registers, if the payment was made after 30th May 1961.

6. For the reasons given in the said connected matter, I am inclined to accept the present appeal and to remand the case back to the learned Rent Controller with the direction that he should allow parties to lead evidence on the above questions and pass orders afresh in the light of the observations made above on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the parties. I order accordingly. Parties will bear their own costs. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑I agree. S. A. H. Order accordingly.