1986 PLP 2642 (CLC)

Zafar Alam Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1986. MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑‑In this petition the only relevant point is that the respondent No. 2 has issued a notice of eviction to the petitioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show‑cause against his eviction. The petitioner claimed to be the tenant of respondent No. 1 from 1968 or even earlier and there had been agreement of occupation of the shop. The petitioner had filed a Suit No. 375 of 1976 in this High Court against respondent No. 1 and has obtained an injunction against the eviction without re‑course to law on 4‑6‑1976. But the respondent No. 2 suddenly issued impugned notice on 24‑6‑1976 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his position. But the impugned notice was issued under section 3/9 of Ordinance 54 of 1965. This notice is, therefore, hit by the provision for common law generally called natural justice, which requires that a person shall not be condemned without being heard. Mr. Zafar Alam Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, had submitted that in this Ordinance, there was no provisionfor hearing the person against whom the notice was being issued under section 3 and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 was competent to issue a direct notice of eviction. This submission is not correct because it has been held by the Supreme Court that the provisions of natural justice requiring show‑cause notice shall be treated to be a part of every law, unless specifically excluded. Reference is invited to P L D 1971 S C 55(60) where it was held that rule of Natural Justice is to be presumed to be grafted into every law. In the leading case of Commissioner of Karachi v. Dina Sohrab Katrak P L D 1959 S C 45(50), it was held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as under:‑‑ "It cannot be disputed that it is a principle of natural justice that no one should be dealt with to his material disadvantage or deprived of his liberty or property without having an opportunity of being heard and making his defence." The principle of common law has been recognised by the Supreme Court. Mr. Zafar Alam Khan, had shown to us that in 1984 the provision of notice was introduced in this Ordinance. This later amendment in the Ordinance itself exhibits that the lagislature had realised that a provision of a notice before eviction was necessary to be made. This amendment must have been considered necessary in view of the dictums laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by all the High Courts that A before a person is condemned he must have an opportunity to show cause against the same. Consequently, we are of the view, that the impugned notice, dated 24‑6‑1976 was hit by principle of natural justice and was, therefore, without lawful authority. We have refrained from commenting upon the different contentions made by the petitioner and respondent because we were clearly of the view that notice before eviction was necessary. Therefore, it was inapt to deal with the merits of the case. It is, therefore, abvious that the parties are free to take re‑course to the legal steps available to them. H.B.T. Petition allowed.