' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.----This order shall dispose of C.Ps. Nos.1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961-L of 2001 which are directed against a consolidated judgment dated 9-2-2001 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the Constitutional petitions filed by the petitioners by holding that they may file fresh ejectment petitions against the respondents on the ground of reconstruction before the learned Rent Controller.
2. The facts of these cases are chequered. The property under dispute having been treated as an Evacuee Property was transferred to the petitioners by the Settlement Department in the year 1960 upon the commencement of operation under Displaced Persons' (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. After having equipped themselves with proper sanction for the reconstruction of the property from the competent authority the petitioners in all these cases filed ejectment petitions against the respondents in the year 1982 on the ground of reconstruction. The respondents in their respective written statements denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.
In the case of Mirza Yaqoob Baig, respondent in C.P.L.A. No, 1957-L of 2001, an issue qua the relationship of the landlord and tenant was framed. It was decided by the learned Rent Controller in favour of the petitioners on 3-4-1983. Thereafter another issue qua reconstruction was framed.
The petitioners produced documentary evidence to substantiate their claim of reconstruction. They also deposed that the respondents after reconstruction would be provided accommodation similar in nature.
3. After thrashing the entire evidence, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that by producing documentary evidence, the petitioners have substantiated their claim that the plan for reconstruction of the entire building had since been sanctioned. Even the issue that the petitioners had got no funds to raise construction was negated by the learned Rent Controller. Taking stock of all this evidence the learned Rent Controller in the case of Mirza Yaqoob Baig (C.P. No,1957-L of 2001) ordered his ejectment through order, dated 6-3-1989.
4. Mirza Yaqoob Baig filed an appeal before the learned District Judge which was accepted on 9-7- 1989 by the learned Additional District Judge as by that time due to the interjection of Administrator-General Punjab at the instance of one Abdul Razzaq, the title of the property in dispute went under cloud. The learned Additional District Judge while accepting the appeal made reference to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-7-1986 titled Administrator-General, Punjab v. M. Stanlay Charles William Rose reported in PLD 1986 Lah.
333, on the application of the Administrator-General, Punjab filed under sections 11 and 278 of the Administrator-General Act, 1913 and section 253 of the Succession Act, 1925 directed him to take possession of the disputed property by accepting his application.
5. Similar ejectment petitions were filed against the respondents in C.P.L.As. Nos. 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961-L of 2001. They all denied the relationship of landlord and tenant before the Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller, in view of the afore-stated development whereby the title of the petitioners went under cloud dismissed the ejectment petitions by making reference to the proceedings initiated before the Lahore High Court by the Administrator-General, Punjab.
6. The petitioners filed different appeals against the rejection of their ejectment petitions which were dismissed by the learned Additional District. Judge through different orders.
7. The petitioners filed Constitutional petitions bearing Writ Petitions Nos. 2586 of 1984, 2588 of 1984, 2589 of 1984, 981 of 1990 and 983 of 1990 taking exception to the orders of the learned Rent Controller as well as of the learned Additional District Judge whereby the ejectment petitions were dismissed. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court disposed of all the Constitutional petitions vide a consolidated judgment, dated 9-2-2001 and held that since these ejectment petitions were dismissed simply on the ground that the petitioners' title to the property was doubtful which ground was no more in the field by virtue of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court which was upheld by this Court through its judgment, dated 15-11-1995, therefore, the petitioners may move ejectment petitions against the private respondents afresh if so advised on the ground of reconstruction. Exception has been taken to this judgment by the petitioners by filing the afore-mentioned petitions.
8. We heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time on 24-2-2003. We confronted the learned counsel appearing for the respondents with the fact that the title of the petitioners was not initially denied as they based their claim on a transfer order issued by the Settlement Department as far back as in the year 1960. It was objected subsequently through the interjection of Administrator-General, Punjab which title of the property was cleared by the Lahore High Court in the Intra-Court Appeal which determination was upheld as already stated by this Court through its judgment, dated 27-11-1995. It is pertinent to mention here that the Settlement Authority never cancelled the transfer order made in favour of the petitioners. We have also noticed that none of the respondents controverted the plea of reconstruction urged by the petitioners in categorical terms. Even in the case of Mirza Yaqoob Baig, subject-matter of C.P. No,1957-L of 2001, the learned Rent Controller on the basis of documents accepted the plea of reconstruction and ordered the ejectment of the respondent. However, because of interjection of Administrator-General, Punjab, at the initiation of one Abdur Razaq the valid and bona fide title of the property in favour of the petitioners went under cloud, as such the petitioners' ejectment petitions as well as their appeals against the rejection of their petition were dismissed simply on that ground.
9. After noting the afore-stated aspects of the case, we asked the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to substantiate their stance why the petitioners be again sent back to the learned Rent Controller so as to file a fresh petition on the ground of reconstruction when the same was not seriously objected by them in the presence of documentary evidence whereby sanction by the competent authority was accorded and in the case of Mirza Yaqoob Baig respondent in C.P.
No,1957-L of 2001 the same was accepted. They simply stated that since the petitioners had already filed ejectment petitions after the dismissal of their writ petitions as such these petitions can very well be disposed of in the said terms as upon the plea of reconstruction apart from C.P.
No,1957-L of 2001 in case of Mirza Yaqoob Baig, no determination was made on that issue. However, after arguing the case for some time Kh. Saeed uz Zafar, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents in C.Ps. Nos.1957 and 1960-L of 2001 stated that he would be satisfied if some time is given to the respective respondents to vacate the premises. He also prayed that the petitioners be bound down to provide accommodation to the respondents after reconstruction. The stance taken by Kh. Saeed uz Zafar, learned Advocate Supreme Court was straightaway adopted by Malik Sher Bahadur learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the private respondent in C.P. No,1961. Mr. Nasim Ahmad Khan learned counsel appearing for the respondent in C.Ps. Nos.1959 also adopted this course of action after some arguments.
10. Dr. A. Basit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated in categorical terms that the petitioners would abide by all the legal provisions and honour their commitment which they even made during the course of rent proceedings before the subordinate forums. The construction would be raised strictly in accordance with the sanction and the respondents would be, provided accommodation similar in nature.
11. Since, none was present for Fakhar ud Din Yousaf Ali respondent No 3 in C.P. No 1958-L of 2001 as such notice was issued to this respondent for 26-2-2003. On the adjourned date i.e, 26-2-2003 Mr. Subah Sadiq, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of the said respondent and sought time Accordingly the case was adjourned for today i.e, to 27th of February, 2003. Mr. Babar Sohail, Advocate has appeared who is not an Advocate for this Court. However, in the interest of justice after going through the record we have also decided to treat his case at par with the other respondents who are similarly placed.
12. It may be mentioned here that though these petitions could have been disposed of as both the parties showed their concurrence for the same, however, the detail judgment has been given so as to give guidelines to the subordinate Courts to come out of the technicalities so as to render substantial justice to the litigants in order to alleviate their plights.
13. We have noticed in this case that the litigation between the parties before us started a quarter of century earlier. It would be too technical and harsh to ask the petitioners after a quarter of century to start afresh on the ground of reconstruction which plea was never controverted by the respondents and was fully substantiated by the petitioners by producing documentary evidence sanctioned from the competent authority. As already stated the learned Rent Controller accepted the said plea of reconstruction as per C.P. No,1957-L of 2001 in the case of Mirza Yaqoob Baig. This Court being Court of complete justice has to keep the balance of justice on even scale. The petitioners in this case should not be put to another long period of agony facing to contest their case in the Courts on the ground which was not seriously subjected to by the respondent and which was even accepted in case of Mirza Yaqoob Baig in C.P. No,1957-L of 2001 by the learned Rent Controller.
14. It is often said that delay in justice amounts to denial of justice. There is no fault with the Judicial System. It is its administration which causes that much delay. Litigation has increased manifold but the manpower to tackle the same does not commensurate with the same. Perplexity of technicalities is perhaps one of the major reasons for this delay. Even petty matters linger on for decades to reach their logical conclusions. Such an approach creates great hurdle in the way of the oppressed to get justice within a reasonable time which naturally results in generating frustrations and despondency against the System. The Courts must not shatter the trust reposed by general public in them by involving themselves in procedural technicalities. Their prime duty is to administer substantial justice which should not only be done but also seen to have been done at the earliest. At this juncture it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council made as far back as in the year 1872 in the case titled The General Managar of the Raj Durbhunga, under the Court of Wards v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh (14 MIA 605 = 17 WR 459 = 10 BLRPC 294 = 2 Suth. PCJ 575 = 3 Sar. PCJ 117 respecting the plight of litigants in this part of the world which are as under:-- "The Right Hon. Sir James Colvile.-These proceedings certainly illustrate what was said by Mr. Doyne and what has been often stated before, that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. When, whoever, the actual question which is at issue between the appellant and the respondent on this appeal is eliminated from the rest of the record, it does not appear to their Lordships to present any very great difficulty."
' We note it with pain that the situation has not improved after the passage of the one hundred and thirty years. It has rather got worsened and the parties suffer agonies of litigation without final determination for generations.
15. Accordingly with the concurrence of the parties, all these petitions are converted into appeal and are accepted. The respondents are given six months' time from today to give vacant possession of the premises in question to the petitioners on or before 26-8-2003 without recourse to the execution proceedings failing which they shall be evicted forthwith without any notice with the police force, if necessary. The petitioners in the circumstances are also bound down that they would undertake the reconstruction in accordance with law at the earliest and provide accommodation to the respondents as mandated by the Rent Restriction Ordinance. There shall be no orders as to costs.