' This Constitutional Petition calls in question the validity of the order dated 1st December, 1980 of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal and maintained the order dated 16th July, 1980 directing his ejectment from the disputed property passed earlier by the learned Rent Controller, Gujranwala.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 23rd July, 1978, Ghulam Muhammad respondent filed an ejectment petition against Faqir Muhammad petitioner from the lower portion of his property situated in Mohallah Guru Nanakpura, Gujranwala on the plea that he had committed default in payment of monthly rent of the disputed premises and that he required the same bona fide for his own us A and occupation. Ghulam ' Muhammad was transferee/owner of the disputed property. He served a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 but alleged that despite the receipt thereof the petitioner failed to pay rent of the disputed property to him. The ejectment petition was resisted by the present petitioner and it was pleaded that no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was served upon him and also that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed following issues :-
(1) Whether the petitioner has served the notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 upon the respondent?
(2) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?
(3) Relief.
The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 16th July, 1980; accepted the application of the respondent. The petitioner challenged the aforementioned order of his ejectment in appeal which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 1st December, 1980 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was not proved upon the petitioner, and therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not come into operation between the parties.
It was also submitted that the unanimous findings of the learned lower Courts holding that no notice under section 30 was necessary on account of the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, are untenable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that after the repeal of the evacuee laws no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was necessary. It was also submitted that evidence on record established that the property in dispute was transferred since long in favour of the respondent and P. T.
0. As well as P. T. D. Was also issued in his favour. The petitioner despite notice never paid rent to the respondent and refused to acknowledge him as his landlord.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and I find that the ejectment petition in this case was filed on 23rd July, 1978, i. e. After the repeal of the Displaced B Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The notice under section 30 of the repealed statute was, therefore, not necessary. In Muhammad Ramzan v. Ch. Bashir Ahmad it was held :- "In fact it has not been found necessary to examine the other. Question because the controversy involved herein stands resolved on the basis of the correct understanding of the intention underlying the relevant provisions of section 30 itself. With these clarifications and in the light of the foregoing discussion, the argument of the learned counsel with regard to notice under section 30 and the application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act are repelled. The petitioner was not entitled to a notice nor the protection and the respondent was not under any liability to send such a notice to the petitioner before filing the eviction petition, because the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1958 having been repealed, it was not necessary."
' The case Muhammad lqbal Qureshi v. Mst. Jaleesa Begum was duly noticed in the above- referred case.
6. In this view of the matter the orders passed by the learned lower Courts holding that notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was not necessary after the repeal of the statute are unexceptionable. The rent of the disputed property was admittedly not paid because the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. His ejectment from the disputed property was, therefore, in accordance with law.
7. There is no merit in this petition and the same is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.
Writ . PLD 1981 SC 340 PLD 1980 Lah. 443