P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

SHABIR AHMAD, J.‑‑‑

Abdur Razzaq, Muhammad Anwar, Imdad Ali Shah., Jan Muhammad, Gul Khan and two others all of whom had executed rent deeds for vacant plots of land in an area known, as Kapurthala House Building Scheme, in favour of the Lahore Improvement Trust, were served with notices to vacate the pieces of land of which they were tenants. On receipt of these notices of ejectment each of them sent a notice to the Improvement Trust saying, inter alia, that they could not be ejected without being provided alternate accommodation as contemplated by section 27 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The Lahore Improvement Trust did not accept this contention of their tenants where upon the tenants brought suits for permanent injunction against the Improvement Trust. Seven suits, one by each of the persons mentioned above, were brought and, as they raised substantially the same questions of facts and law, they were consolidated at the request of the counsel for the parties, and the learned trial judge framed the following issues :‑ (1) Whether the plaintiff raised any construction at the premises in dispute ? If so, what is its effect ? (2) Whether the defendant had held out any assurance to the plaintiff when the latter had taken possession of the premises that he would be given at least four months' notice before ejectment ? (3) Did the plaintiff serve the defendant with a notice under section 27 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act requiring it to provide him with an alternative accommodation in a re-housing scheme ? If so, what is its effect ? (4) Whether the defendant is liable to pay any compensa tion to the plaintiff before his ejectment ? (5) Relief. All the suits were dismissed on the 9th of October 1956 by Mr. Muhammad Siddiq, Civil Judge, 1st Class, Lahore, against whose decision seven appeals were instituted, one by each of the unsuccessful plaintiffs. These seven appeals were dismissed on the 11th of January 1957, by Mr. Zia Ullah Khan the then Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. Against the decision of the Senior Civil judge five appeals have been instituted, the present appeal being by Abdur Razzaq, Regular Second Appeal No. 59 of 1957 by Muhammad Anwar Regular Second Appeal No. 60 of 1957 by Imdad Ali Shah, Regular Second Appeal No. 61 of 1957 by Jan Muhammad and Regular Second Appeal No. 63 of 1957 by Gul Khan. All these five appeals which raise the same questions will be disposed of by this order. The only contention raised by Mr. Raza Kazim, who appeared for the appellants in all the five appeals, was that the Courts below had erred in holding that section 27 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, did not apply to the plaintiffs. This section is in the following terms:‑- "Any resident house‑owner who is likely to be displaced by the execution of any scheme under this Act, may apply to the Trust to be re‑housed, and no such scheme shall be put into execution until a Re‑housing Scheme as provided for in section 26 for the re‑housing of such resident house‑owners as may apply under this section has been completed," and the question for determination is whether or not the appellants can be considered to be resident house‑owners for the purposes of the section. It is established on the record that each of the appellants had executed a rent deed in favour of the Lahore Improve ment Trust wherein he had agreed, inter alia, to the following terms (1) that he will vacate the piece of land he was taking on rent within 48 hours of the receipt of notice in that behalf and (2) that he will not put up any construction of temporary or permanent nature on the plot of land of which he was taking possession as a tenant. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that, in spite of the fact that the appellants had agreed to vacate the land within 48 hours of the notice served by the owner in that behalf and not to put up any sort of construction on the vacant piece of land which had been let out to them, they became resident house‑owners for the purposes of section 27 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and could not, therefore, be ejected without being provided with alternate accommodation in a re‑housing scheme. In my view this contention is devoid of all force. The term "house‑owner" is not defined in the Punjab Town Improvement Act, nor can any definition be arrived at by help of the relevant sections of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, which Act because of clause (1) of section 2 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, can be used for arriving at the definition of the expressions not defined in the Act of 1922, but I have no doubt in my mind that a person, who has taken on lease a plot of land out of a building scheme from an Improvement Trust and has agreed not to build on that plot, cannot be considered to be an house‑owner for the purposes of section 27 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act if he raises some sort of construction on the plot of land of which he is a tenant. What the plaintiffs did was against the terms of the contract entered into by them and they cannot now turn round and say that, because they have broken the terms of their contract, they are in a secure position and cannot be ejected without being treated as resident house‑owners for the purposes of section 27 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. All the five appeals which have no force are consequently dismissed with costs. Z. A. S./A.H. Appeals dismissed.