1986 PLP 1279 (CLC)

Azmat Saeed for Petitioner. Mian Najam‑uz‑Zaman A.A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1 to

5. This writ petition has been filed by an owner of a house in Lahore on the grievance that in respect of the property already in their possession, the respondents had taken resort to requisitioning of property by invoking the provisions of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, which action is impugned in the present proceedings.

2. The judgment was reserved to await the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in I‑.C.A. No.75 to 1977 and the connected matters. The aforesaid decision of the Division Bench has been made available by the learned Assistant Advocate General Mr. Najamu2 Zaman as the principle enunciated therein and the law laid down stand fully attracted to the facts of the present case.

3. The learned Division Bench in precedent case in para. 12 of the judgment have dealt with a case in which requisition had been made on 11‑7‑1977 but the eviction petition had been filed later on 14‑3‑1979. The learned Rent Controller in that case had rejected the eviction application while following the judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Tufail v. Province of Punjab and 5 others P L D 1978 Lah.

87. The fate of this was also decided in the light of the fact that the aforecited judgment P L D 1978 Lah. 87 had been upheld and, therefore, held the field and the order of the learned Rent Controller, as based thereon, called for no interference.

4. In the facts of the present case, it is true that the requisition was made earlier in 1977 and the eviction application was filed in January, 1984 as is evident from a reading of Annexure 'A' to this writ petition. However, in pare. 3 of the writ petition, it has been specifically averred by the petitioner as follows:- "It would be pertinent at this juncture to mention that the petitioner was not served with a notice prior to the requisitioning. The petitioner became aware of the impugned order after the same was mentioned in written reply and copy thereof filed before the learned Rent Controller."

5. In the comments offered by the Department, in reply to para. 3 it is stated "No comments". The averments in the writ petition are supported by affidavit and the statement that no comments are being offered amounts to acceptance of the averments as true. In this view of the matter, if no notice for requisitioning was served on the petitioner he cannot be held to be guilty of laches.

6. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in I.-C.A. No.75 of 1977, Province of Punjab and others v. Muhammad Tufail, I would accordingly hold that the requisitioning of the property in question was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The writ petition is accepted. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. H . B . T . Petition accepted.