The respondent filed a petition under section 13 of (he West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for the eviction of the appellant from a portion of the house No. 86-R-465, Ferozepur Road, Lahore. According to the respondent the house in question was transferred vide P.
T. O. No. 747423. It was further claimed that on - 4;4-1961 a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was served on the appellant for the payment of the rent at Rs. 60 from the date of issuance of the P.' T. O. The appellant having not paid the rent in pursuance to the said notice the petition for eviction was filed on the ground of default, damage to the property, nuisance and bona fide personal need. This petition for eviction was contested by the appellant on several grounds including the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The service of the notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act was also denied'. The appellant had also objected that he was an allottee of an open piece of land measuring 21 marlas and that he had raised super--structure by spending Rs. 10,000 from his own pocket. In reply to paragraph 1 of the petition for eviction on merits the appellant asserted that the portion of the house in occupation of the appellant which had been constructed by him had not been transferred and was in occupation in his independent right. An application was made that the property in question had been acquired by the Lahore Improvement Trust for Gulberg Scheme No. III and for that reason the appellant bad not remained a transferee of the property in question. The learned Rent Controller framed the following preliminary issues . "
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties ?
(2) Whether a valid notice -under section 30 has been duly served on the respondent ?
On issue No. 1 the learned Rent Controller, Lahore held that on the basis of the documents of transfer the respondent was the transferee of the land in question. As regards the contention of the appellant that after the land had been acquired by the Lahore Improvement Trust the respondent had ceased to be an owner of the property was repelled, Under issue No. 2 it was held that a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act had been duly served on the appellant. The learned Rent Controller thereafter did not feel the necessity of framing any other issue as according to the res--pondent the application also proceeded on the ground of default and it had nowhere been stated by the appellant that he had paid or tendered the rent. The learned Rent Controller in the end directed the appellant to remove the superstructure which he had constructed at his own cost. No portion or the extent to which the construction had been made by the appellant had been specified. By allowing four months time to the appellant to vacate the premises petition under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was accepted by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore vide his order dated 8-11-1975. The appellant filed an appeal and the findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide his order dated 28-5- 1977. Both these orders have been assailed in the present appeal.
3. The appellant had examined Muhammad Siddiq. (R. W. 1) Record Keeper, Land Acquisition Branch of the Lahore Improvement Trust who brought alongwith him the record of Khasra Nos. 309 and 310 and deposed that the Lahore Improvement. Trust had acquired the area on 30-10-1962 and paid the compensation to the Custodian, Evacuee Property in respect of the land in question.
Muhammad Fazal (P. W. 1) was produced to prove the service of the notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Nazir Ahmad (P. W. 2) deposed that the appellant occupied the site in dispute in 1952 and at that time when he entered into the premises the pro--perty in question comprised of a compound wall and 1 room apart- from a courtyard. The improvements made by the appellant were also mentioned. The respondent appeared as P. W. 3 and produced P. T. O. (Exh: P/3) and the notice (Exh. P/2). It was armed by the respondent that at the time when the appellant occupied the property in question comprised of 1 room and a compound wall. The entire area shown in the site plan consisted of 4 rooms and a courtyard. In the P. T. - O. (Exh. P/3) the description of the property was given as 405, Ferozepur Road, Lahore.
4. The learned Additional District fudge, Lahore examined the contention of the appellant that the property in question had never been transferred to the appellant as he was in occupation of property No. 405/F which had never been transferred to the respondent. The appellant claimed that this property had never been transferred to any person. According to the appellant it was an open plot and he had himself raised the construction and therefore, the provisions of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act were not attracted to the facts of the present case. On the contrary the respondent claimed that he was the transferee of the entire house and a portion of which is 'in occupation of the appellant which he occupied in 1952 and at the relevant time it consisted of one room and a compound wall and the remaining additions had been made by the appellant himself. Admittedly the P. T. O. Issued in favour of the appellant has not so far been cancelled. The question whether after the acquisition the appellant was to remain the transferee was a matter between the Lahore Improvement Trust and the respondent. What were the terms of acquisition from the Central Government while obtaining the sanction of the Central Government under the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 or any earlier law had not been produced on record. Besides, the appellant himself had applied for the transfer of the said property and the litigation in the Settlement Department culminated in 1973: There is a concurrent finding that the respondent is the transferee of the property and had served on the appellant a valid notice under section 30 of the Act.
5. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The Rent Controller is not legally competent to go behind the P. T. O. In case the evacuee property had been acquired by the Lahore Improvement Trust and did not become the part of the compensation pool, the matter could not be agitated before the Rent Controller. Reference in this behalf may be placed on Ghulam Muhammad Khan v.
Muhammad Asadullah Siddiqi (1972 SCMR 340) and Abdul Karim v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1976 SCMR 79). It has been further held in Mehdi Hassan v. Ghulam Muhammad, etc. (PLD 1964 Lah. 648) that a transferee in order to prove the transfer has simply to produce the P. T. O. For this reason as well the contention of the appellant cannot be legally sustained. The appellant failed to produce any document that the property in his occupation was separate from property No. 405 transferred to the respondent. As already indicated above the appellant had been litigating with the respondent for the transfer of the same. It appears that the property in question formed a part of the property transferred to the respondent and in the open space the appellant had made some improvements.
6. In view of the above discussion this appeal has no force which is hereby dismissed. The learned Rent Controller had rightly permitted the appellant to remove any additional superstructure which he had raised. The extent of the original construction had already been given by the witnesses which fact was not contradicted. However, in view of the fact that the appellant has to remove the superstructure, he as allowed three months' time to deliver the vacant possession of the disputed house.