2004 PLP 353 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2003.

1. Differed.

2. Granted. 3 &

4. By our order dated 14‑5‑2003 we had noticed that the public functionaries against whom reliefs for claim were only sued in their respective personal name and not in their official capacity. We granted time to the petitioner to amend title, 'but it seems that he has filed amended petition. However, he explained that only first para of the petition was amended because in the earlier memo the ownership of the property over which he is organizing Bachat Barar or claiming right was not mentioned. In view of the above, we would accept the amended petition on record and proceed to decide the same on merit. The Bachat Bazar, as stated in the petition, is being held by the petitioner on an open plot, apparently belonging to the Town Committee, Gulshan‑e‑Iqbal, Karachi, as a successor to the erstwhile Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. The petitioner was granted a No. Objection Certificate by the then Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Karachi, East, dated 6‑8‑2001, stating that the aforesaid officer had no objection if a Thursday Bachat Bazar, was run by the petitioner on the aforesaid plot upon certain specified terms and conditions. The petitioner contended that he has been holding the Bazar for more than two years and has been regularly paying rent at the rate of Rs.4,000 per month to the respondent No.2. However, on 7‑4‑2003 he was informed by a letter from Deputy Town Officer (B&R) Gulshan-e-Iqbal Town, that the Town Nazim had extended permission to the petitioner to hold the Bazar upto 2nd May, 2003 and thereafter the permission shall stand cancelled. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court. Admittedly though the property is owned by a Local Government no document envisaging creation of any interest therein on the part of the owner in favour of the petitioner has been placed on record. Indeed the Deputy Commissioner or District Magistrate had no legal right to transfer or create any interest in any property owned by the Local Government, nor does the elaborate NOC say so. Apparently it was issued only by the Deputy Commissioner who was also the District Magistrate and specified condition relating to prevention nuisance and compliance with other laws. Significantly no rate of rent etc., was mentioned. Even if it be presumed that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the real owner of the property it needs to be kept in view that he does not enjoy the protection of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, inasmuch as the terms of the Ordinance do not apply to open plots. Even otherwise there is nothing to show that exclusive possession of the property was given to the petitioner so as to create a right in the property itself. At best the permission to use it on day during a week could be treated as a mere licencee and no serious objection could be taken, to its termination after three weeks notice. For the foregoing reason we are constrained to dismiss this petition in limine alongwith the listed‑applications. H.B.T./F‑51/K Petition dismissed.