AMJAD KHAN, J.- This judgment will also dispose of the connected S A.O.No.493/1978 and Crl.
Original No.64/C of 1988 relating thereto.
2. Facts giving rise to the S.A.O, and the writ-petition are that property No. SW.XII-3A-S-8, Ghulam Colony, Multan Road, Lahore was under the tenancy of Rehman Girls High School, Nawan Kot at a monthly rental of Rs.600/- . It was taken over by the Government of Punjab under Martial Law Regulation No.118 in the year 1972 and thereby relationship of landlord and tenant came to be established between the petitioner and the Government. Latter defaulted in the payment of rent of the demised premises with the result that an application for ejectment was brought by the petitioner on 9.6.1974 on the ground of default in payment of rent. By his order dated 28.4.1975, learned Rent Controller directed under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance that arrears of rent amounting to Rs.16,200/- be deposited before 8.7.1975 and the future rent before the 15th of every succeeding month. Tenant defaulted in compliance of this order in so far as it deposited Rs.13,920/- under the head of arrears with a delay of one day (only on 8.7.1975) and the monthly rent relating to May, 1975 was deposited on 11.7.1975 against the requirement about its payment up to 14th of June. Similarly, rent relating to the months of August and September, 1975 were deposited on 13.11.1975. Tenant urged for condonation of delay with regard only to the deposit 'f arrears of rent on the plea that a bill for the required amount had to be passed by the office of the Accountant General where delay occurred in the processing thereof. Learned Controller was not satisfied with the bona fides of the plea for inv reason that there was more than two months already granted for depositing the arrears and it had not been mentioned in the application even as to when may the relevant bill have been forwarded to the office of the Accountant General and came to the view that Government was not entitled to be given a treatment different from an ordinary tenant. Since there was no plea at all raised with regard to the delayed deposit of three monthly rents, therefore, after rejecting the plea for condonation, learned Rent Controller proceeded to strike OF defence of the tenant and ordered eviction of the tenant by his order dated 16.4.1976, requiring that possession of the property will be made over within four months thereof.
3. An appeal thereagainst was filed by the tenant on 22.4.1976 but before it could be decided, order dated 11.2.1977 for requisitioning of the property was issued by the respondent Government under D.O. No. 8.O.(R&B)ADG/R- l(H/S-Girls)-Judl. II, in exercise of the powers vesting under Section 3(1) of West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act,1956. The appeal came up for hearing before a learned Additional District Judge wherein plea with regard to requisitioning of the property in dispute was raised for defeating the order of eviction but learned Judge seized of the to attach any importance to it and repelled the plea with the observation that:- "....It will have the effect of nullifying an executable order passed by a competent Rent Controller under the law. The move to requisition property after passing of a valid ejectment order can, therefore, be terms as a mala fide order which is a camouflaged attempt to deprive the landlady of the fruit of a lawful ejectment order."
On merits learned Additional District Judge did not find any redeeming factor for the repeated defaults which were found by him to be glaring, flagrant and wilful. In consequence, by his judgment dated 29.6.1978 he dismissed the appeal.
4. The Government-tenant reached this Court for reaping the benefit of requisition order in S A.O.
No.493 of 1978 which was admitted to regular hearing on 24.10.1978 to examine the question as to whether validity of the requisitioning order could have been lawfully pronounced upon by the lower appellate authority. This necessitated institution of Writ Petition No.1892 of 1984 by the landlady for challenging the order of requisitioning of the property on the ground of its being mala fide, actuated by the desire to avoid execution of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent. In that wake, she has also challenged the legality and vires of the requisitioning order.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and whereas the one appearing for the petitioner (landlady) has reiterated his plea with regard to mala fides and lack of power to requisition a property with a view to defeating an order of ejectment passed on account of default in payment of rent; there has not been made even an attempt by the learned counsel appearing for the Government to either justify the non-payment of rent or to satisfactorily explain the delays involved in complying with the orders relating to the deposit of the arrears and the monthly rents.
His sole reliance is on the requisitioning order.
6. These cases do not require any elaborate dealing with regard to the requisitioning order because case of Muhammad Tufail reported as P.L.D. 1978 Lahore 87 had arisen in identical circumstances and conclusion was therein reached by a learned Single Judge of this Court that requisitioning of the property in such a situation was unmistakably an act of mala fides and the order was held to have been passed without lawful authority. The judgment has since been affirmed by a learned Division Bench of this Court upon dismissal of I.CA.No.75 of 1977 and although C.P.S.L.A. No.570 of 1985 is stated to have been taken thereagainst to the Supreme Court yet, the fate thereof is not known. There, however, is an order of refusal to grant interim stay therein reported as P.L.D. 1985 S.C. 360. An order of ejectment passed against the Government of Punjab due to default in payment of rent was tried to be similarly over-reached in another case with a similar order made for requisitioning of the relevant premises and the dispute having reached the Supreme Court, there is the case Province of Punjab v. Civil Judge and others (1982 PSC 715) which is on all-fours with this case and paragraph 7 of the judgment of their Lordships may be advantageously reproduced hereunder: - "We are of the view that the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in ordering the eviction of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, we agree with the stricture passed on petitioner No. 1 by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court to the effect that petitioner No. 1 had acted mala-i.e in getting the building requisitioned to avoid the consequences of its own negligence, which is supported by the view expressed by Mr Justice Aftab Hussain, while setting aside the order of requisition."
7. Respectfully following the above view, Writ Petition No.1892 of 1984 brought by Begum Masooda Malik is accepted by setting aside the order of requisition dated 11.2.1977 as having been passed without lawful authority.
As such, there is no force in S A,O.No.493 of 1978 which is, hence, dismissed for the reason that the order striking OF the defence to the tenant is eminently justified in the facts and circumstances.
There, however, is not passed any order as to costs on either of the cases.
8. Crl. Original No.64/C of 1988 arises out of the alleged violation of the order of status-quo passed on 24.10.1978 in the SA.O. And the allegations therein are that the land-lady had forcibly taken over possession of one of the rooms of the school by breaking the lock and removed the articles lying there, and, further, she has also cut OF one water-tap of the school to deprive it of the drinking water. Since Punjab Government has lost the litigation on its merit and the S.A.O, as well as the writ petition have been decided against it, therefore, J do, not feel persuaded to proceed further in this contempt-petition which is accordingly rejected.