1983 PLP 2514 (CLC)

Dates of bearing : 25th and 26th October, 1977. The petitioner is the owner of a residential building situate in Samanabad, Lahore, bearing the property No. S‑XVI‑215 S‑

6. At one stage this building housed an educational institution, namely, Azad Public High School. That School was, however, nationalized in the year 1972 and thus the Government stepped into the shoe of the Management of the School. On the 14th of February, 1977, the Government requisitioned the building under section 3 (1) of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immov able Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, and directed the owner to deliver possession of the property to the District Education Officer, Lahore, within three days of the order. However, it seems the order was not communicated to the petitioner upto the 7th of ‑April, 1977. In the meantime, the petitioner asserts, the building was vacated by the School and the petitioner got possession thereof. On the dates the requisition order was served on him, he was already in possession of the building. On the basis of these facts, the petitioner questions the validity of the order of requisition on two grounds :‑ (1) that no notice was served upon the occupant of the building as required under the third proviso to section 3 (1) of the Act ; and (2) that the order requiring the petitioner to vacate the building' is in conflict with the fourth proviso to section 3 (1) of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the building was vacated by the School on the 19th of February, 1977, and in support of this assertion he relies upon annexure 'A' which is a letter addressed by the Headmaster of the School to the petitioner saying that the building was being vacated under orders of the Minister for Education and that the petitioner should take charge of it. The letter is dated the 19th of February, 1977. However, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, possession was never delivered to the petitioner but be trespassed into it on the 2nd of March, 1977 despite the resistance offered by the chaukidar employed by the Government to guard the building. The respondent s case is that the building was vacated in February, 1977, only for the purpose of repairs. The objections of the petitioner have to be examined in the light of these circumstances. .1t is not disputed that at the time the order of requisition was made, it was the School that was in occupation of the Government sand not the petitioner. So, the question . whether any notice was served upon the School under the third proviso to section 3 il) of the Act cannot be raised by‑ the petit‑loner. In fact the School having teen nationalized slid being sander the management of the Government itself, no notice was necessary. The notice stipulated in the law is meant for a person who leas to vacate the premises as a result of the requisition and not for one who ix to continue in possession and for whose benefit the premises are,' requisitioned. So far the fourth proviso is concerned; there is no doubt that it gives full ,protection to the owner in occupation against ejectment. But in the present case, there is nothing on the record to show that p sion of the house‑had been delivered to the petitioner before the passing of the requisition order. Even after that order was passed, the delivery of possession is doubtful. There is, however, no doubt that the building was vacal9d .art the 19th of February, ^

973. But it is not possi ble to hold ^n the basis of annexure 'A' in the presence of. the requisition order made only five days earlier that the building was vacated to let the petitioner occupy it. The note of the Headmaster (Annexure 'A') asking the petitioner to take charge of the. building was either based on a misappreciat:on of the situation or it was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the interest of the school at the instance ref the petitioner. The report of the same Headmaster dated the 2nd of March, 1977, brought on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, though at a late stage, further shows that the petitioner forced his entry into the building on that date. It was the de facto possession of do building by the petitioner that endorsement the endorsement on the 2nd of April, 1977, of the requisition order to the petitioner. On the date the requisition order was passed, there was no occasion to serve ire on the petitioner as the petitioner was not in possession The further proviso relied upon by the petitioner's counsel would attracted if the petitioner were in possession at the time of requisitioning the building in question. I any, therefore satisfied that the impugned order 'cannot bi said to be without lawful authority on any of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As to the genuineness of the requirement of the. Government, the requisitioning authority is the sole Judge thereof. In the circumstances of the present case at least the genuineness of the need cannot be doubted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order apt to costs. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.