MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.- This revision . Petition assails judgment/order dated 7.2.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby appeal of the respondents was accepted and stay application of the petitioner was dismissed by reversing the order dated 27.10.2000 passed by the Trial Court.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction claiming ' that it is a pharmaceutical unit and a Private Limited Company, registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 to the effect that it has opened a laboratory in a rented building since November, 1974, after purchase of pharmaceutical unit from its previous owner namely, M/s. Shifa Medico, It was pleaded that previous owner of the petitioner was already lessee of the building in question, where the petitioner is manufacturing its different products. Petitioner claims that it had some dispute with the landlady over the vacation of their premises out of which it abruptly received a notice bearing No. 80, dated 23.9.2000 from the respondents, alleging that unauthorized constructions have been made within the premises on lease with it. The notice in question is claimed to be contrary to provisions of Section 40(2) of the LDA Act, 1975, thus was asserted to be illegal, void and opposed to principles of natural justice, having been issued without hearing the petitioner. Under the threat of demolition of a portion of the building with the petitioner, it filed a suit in hand, wherein an application for grant of ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, CPC was also moved.
3. Respondents besides, contesting , the Suit resisted the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction, mainly averring the Chief Executive of the petitioner had himself undertaken to remove the unauthorized constructions but the commitment was not fulfilled and thus on account of deliberate violation of commitment the respondents had a right to demolish the constructions. The learned Civil Judge who was seized of the matter, after hearing parties concluded that petitioner has a prima facie and arguable case in its favour and in case the demolition takes place it will suffer an irreparable loss and injury and by finding that it will suffer inconvenience if the injunction prayed is not issued, accepted application of the petitioner and restrained the respondents from undertaking the demolition vide his order dated 27.10.2000.
4. Respondents aggrieved of the application of the petitioner, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, where they succeeded as their appeal was accepted, order of the Trial Court dated 27.10.2000 was set aside and the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed vide order dated 7.2.2004. Thereafter petitioner filed instant revision petition, in which notice to the respondents was issued, who have appeared through their counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though no part of the building in its possession is unauthorizedly constructed, yet the notice subject of suit by the respondents was got issued by a son of the landlady, who after failing in having eviction of the petitioner, got it issued through her son who is a Deputy Director with the respondents and thus claimed that this notice is mala fide.
He further submitted that the petitioner has installed its boiler under a valid license issued by the Boiler Inspector of Industries and Mineral Development, Government of the Punjab, which on the one hand, cannot be removed by the respondents and on the other hand respondents have no right to object to its installation, having been installed since before 1974 within the premises.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that petitioner was rightly held to have prima facie/arguable case and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the respondents are allowed to unauthorizedly interfere in its premises under the grab of baseless claim of illegal constructions as held by the Trial Court. He further emphasized that petitioner is one of the leading Pharmaceutical Companies of the country and if the proposed action is allowed, it is bound to suffer inconvenience at the hands of the respondents, who have no right to act in the complained manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further elaborated his arguments by saying that the learned Additional District Judge acted in vacuum while reversing the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court without meeting the points evolved therein and without determining the prerequisites for grant or refusal of the temporary injunction.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted their assertions of the petitioner, supported the appellate order and urged that installation of boiler even within a premises, located in a highly congested area is dangerous to human life and thus it has to be removed by the respondents, in discharge of their statutory obligations, owing towards the public-at-large. He further contended that raising of constructions for installation of boiler, was without sanction of the respondents thus the notice subject of attack was lawfully issued by the respondents. According to him, no Prima facie or arguable case exists in favour of the petitioner and it is not entitled to any discretionary relief by way of injunction.
7. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undeniably, respondents did not issue any show- cause notice to the petitioner earlier to notice under Section 40(2) of the LDA Act, 1975, requiring it to show - cause against the demolition complained by them. This notice does not contain any narration of installation of boiler being dangerous to the lives of the inhabitants of the area. At the same time, there is nothing of the sort, as claimed before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents, in written statement filed by the respondents. I have also examined the grounds of appeal filed by the respondents before the first Appellate Court and there is no such ground in the memo, of appeal, as well. I wonder on what basis it is argued that boiler installed by the petitioner is dangerous to lives of the inhabitants of the area. Petitioner has produced a valid license under which the boiler was installed and it was issued by the Director of Industries and Mineral Development, Government of the Punjab, who must be taking care of the fact that it is dangerous for anybody living around or not, being the licensers. I have not been shown any provision of law under which the respondents have been given any authority to check or remove the boiler, subject of dispute, It-has rightly been urged that petitioner has a name in the pharmaceutical industry and if this installation, affixed since decades, are allowed to be interrupted by an authority having no lawful jurisdiction to interfere therewith, it will suffer an irreparable loss and injury. The learned Trial Judge has rightly remarked that a prima facie and arguable case exists in favour of the petitioner for the reasons detailed in his order, but a contrary view taken by the Appellate Court lacks such reasons.
8. It is very strange argument that an authority is proceeding to demolish one's property without calling or requiring it to show cause against the demolition under Section 40(2) of the LDA Act, 1975, does not envisage any opportunity of hearing to the person against whom they are proceeding.
There may not be any provision in Section 40 of the LDA Act, but there are principles of natural justice requiring such hearing, which have been acknowledged by the superior indicatory of this country. The controversy regarding hearing is settled by this time, whereunder it is an obligation before taking a punitive action and the Honourable Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that if some statute does not provide such provision, the provision of notice is to be still read in every statute. A reference in this behalf can be made to the cases of Collector, Sahiwal and 2 others vs. Muhammad Akhtar (1971 SCM R 681), Fateh Muhammad vs. Mushtaq Ahmad and 9 others (1981 SCM R 1061) and Gul Muhammad and 8 others vs. Buxal and 2 others (1991 CLC 229).
9. Petitioner is doing its business in the premises in question since its purchase in year 1974 and no such objection was earlier raised by the respondents thus it is bound to suffer irreparable loss and injury, besides suffering of inconvenience in case the injunction prayed is not issued.
10. For what has been said above, it is obvious that appellate order suffers from material irregularities and illegalities envisaged by Section 115, CPC and the same having been passed contrary to settled principles of law, cannot be allowed to be maintained. I accordingly, accept this revision petition and set aside the judgment/order dated 7.2.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, with the result that order of the Trial Court dated 27.10.2000 stands revived.
The suit, which is pending before the Trial Court, is reported to have been adjourned sine die Taking care of arguments of the respondents, I direct the Trial Court to expeditiously conclude the proceedings in the suit preferably within a period of three months even by undertaking day-to-day proceedings. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 21.4.2004, on which date the Trial Court shall start proceedings on the suit for its decision in accordance with law. There will be no orders as to costs.