' The appellants have preferred this appeal under section 6(3) of the Punjab Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act of 1956 against the award dated 22-5-1985 made by the learned District Judge; Lahore in his capacity as arbitrator under the Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was running a school known as Model Girls High School, Mughalpura, Lahore in the property bearing No,SE XVII-9-S Gunj Mughalpura, Lahore. It was nationalized on 1-10-1972 with the enforcement of MLR 118. Its management was taken over by the Education Department of the Province of the Punjab, appellant No,2. The Education Department has been paying rent at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month to the respondent. On 19-12-1983, the respondent filed an ejectment application against the department. In the written statement it was mentioned that the property had been requisitioned under the provisions of the Act vide order dated 18-7-1977.
The respondent approached the appellants for enhancement of the compensation but they refused to do so. Thereupon she filed an application under section 6 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Lahore who allowed the same and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs,2,144 per month with effect from 18-7-1977.
3. The appellants' learned counsel urged that there was no cogent material to prove cost of construction of the building. He submitted that the assessment of the compensation was made on higher side because the property was earlier rented out at Rs,1,000 per month and compensation around Rs,1,500 per month would have been fair. He further urged that the learned arbitrator did not consider that a portion of the property was in possession of the respondent, hence the assessm ent merited proportionate reduction. Lastly he submitted that the appellants had been paying rent at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month which had to be deducted from the compensation fixed by the learned arbitrator. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that property consisted of 8 rooms on the ground floor, one hall, two rooms, one stair and a terrace on the first floor and its compensation could not be less than the one fixed by the arbitrator.
He urged that the rent of the property was Rs,1,000 in the year 1968 and in the year 1977 its rent/compensation should have been at least Rs,3,000 per month. He agreed that the respondent had been receiving the rent at the rate of Rs,1,000 which should be deducted from the compensation determined by the arbitrator.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. Admittedly the requisition order was passed without issuing any notice to the respondent and the same was not binding on her. The fact that the respondent had been receiving rent at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month was no bar to her claim for enhancement of the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Although the respondent had claimed that she had spent about 5/6 lacs of rupees on the construction of the building, the learned arbitrator did not accept it and preferred to rely on the assessm ent made by the local commissioner (Mr. Saeed Ahmad SDO, Buildings Department), who had assessed the cost of the construction at Rs,1,98,410 which, to my mind, appears to be reasonable. The appellants did not lead evidence to controvert the cost of C construction assessed by the local commissioner. The commission assessed the cost of land at the rate of Rs,15,000 par Marla which came to Rs,1,76,550 for 11.77 Marlas. However, the arbitrator reduced it to Rs,5,000 per Marla bringing the total to Rs,58,800. There was no material before the learned arbitrator for assessing the cost of the land at the rate of Rs,5,000 per Marla. He also failed to consider that a portion of the disputed property was in occupation of the respondent. This factor will have a bearing on the proper assessment of the compensation.
5. I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the learned arbitrator who shall assess the price of the land afresh after recording evidence of the parties and thereafter determine the monthly compensation payable to the respondent. He will also ascertain as to how many rooms are actually in occupation of the respondent. After ascertaining the same, he should proprotionately reduce the monthly compensation fixed by him. Moreover, the monthly rent already paid by the appellants at the rate of Rs,1,000 should be deducted from the amount of compensation to be paid by the appellants. The learned arbitrator shall finally decide the case in accordance with the law and the observations made above within a period of 2 months after the receipt of the order of this Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs.