' Briefly stated the petitioner is a tenant under the respondents in respect of the land measuring 35 kanals 4 marlas situate in the urban limits of Nankana, District Sheikhupura since 1960. Learned Deputy Administrator Evacuee Trust Property, Sheikhupura by his order dated 23-6-1980 cancelled the leased area on the ground that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the tenancy.
According to this order the petitioner has raised construction on the land measuring 6 marlas for keeping the animals. There was general observation that this land has been given by the petitioner to his friends. The appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Administrator on 28-7- 1980. While dismissing the appeal, the Administrator directed that the land in question should be re-auctioned. The petitioner is aggrieved against the aforementioned two orders dated 23-6-1980 and 28-7-1980 of Administrator and Deputy Administrator.
2. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has raised construction over a portion of the land for keeping animals and this is no way violation of any terms and conditions. Alternatively he submitted that the respondent before cancelling the total area ought to have given a notice to the petitioner and land could only be cancelled if the petitioner was not able to rectify the alleged breach,
3. There is lot of force in this contention. It was held in "Anjuman-eAhmadiya Sargodha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and the Government of West Pakistan through the Secretary, Colonies, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore" (PLD 1966 S.C. 639), relevant page 649, that even in the case of tenants who have not yet acquired proprietary rights resumption of the tenancy can, under section 24 of the said Act, be only made "after giving the tenant an opportunity to appear and state his objections" and even in such a case if the breach is capable of rectification, the Collector, it is provided, shall not order resumption of the tenancy unless the tenant has failed after notice to rectify the breach within a reasonable time. In the present case, it has not been shown that the petitioner was given a notice.
4. Applying the principle of law in the aforementioned judgment I am of the opinion that the land in question could not have been cancelled unless a notice was given to the petitioner.
5. For the reasons stated above I accept this writ petition and set aside impugned orders dated 23- 6-1980 and 28-7-1980 with no order as to costs.