2019 YLR 943 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Full text

HAMAYUN KHAN VS Raja MUHAMMAD AYAZ O. XXI, R. 99---Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963), S. 17---eviction of tenant---Execution petition---Objections---Matter decided without affording opportunity of hearing---Natural justice, principles of---Applicability---Objection petition was filed but same was dismissed by the Executing Court---Appellate Court accepted the appeal and remanded the matter with the direction to the Executing Court to proceed in accordance with law and decide the same after recording of evidence---Appellate Court while deciding appeal made observation that possession of demised premises could be handed over to the landlord subject to the decision of objection petition---Landlord thereafter filed application before the Executing Court seeking possession of suit property on the basis of said observations which was dismissed---Revisional Court without affording opportunity of hearing to the objection petitioner ordered that possession of suit land be handed over to the landlord forthwith subject to condition that if objection petition was decided against him then possession would be taken back and would be delivered to the party entitled---Validity---Court below had denied the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while hearing the impugned petition---Court while deciding a matter finally was required to afford opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties---Impugned order had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice---Where adverse action was contemplated to be taken against a person then he/she would have right to defend such action notwithstanding the fact that statute governing his/her rights did not contain the provision of principles of natural justice---Appellate Court should have restricted itself to the issues raised before it and could not dilate upon any other issue although same might be pending before subordinate Court---Observation made in the impugned order was beyond the mandate of Appellate Court---Impugned orders passed by the Appellate Court were set aside---Case was remanded to District Judge who should either himself decide the matter or assign the same for disposal to Additional District Judge except the one who had already expressed his opinion---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.