1969 PLP 7 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 11th October 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The dispute in this case relates to a Government quarter situated at No. 399‑G, Rahmanpura Colony, Lahore. This was allotted, on the 5th March 1957 to the respondent No. 1 herein, but this was subsequently cancelled because he had sublet the quarter in question. Subsequently, on the 20th April 1961, this quarter was allotted to the petitioner on his executing an agreement. Dispute, however, arose between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 with regard to this quarter which was ultimately decided by the Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, Communication and Works Department, in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of West Pakistan but the writ was dismissed for default. Efforts to have the writ restored having failed, the respondent No. 1 filed a fresh writ petition which was ultimately allowed by the High Court on the 31st of January 1968. The petitioner applied for special leave to appeal to this Court but his Petition the order vi this Court reviewed on the ground that this Court had omitted to notice that on this very question there is a conflict of decisions not only within the High Court itself but also in this Court. In the case under consideration the High Court had held that the respondent No. 1, who was the petitioner in the High Court, had acquired a vested right in the quarter which entitled him to maintain a writ petition in the High Court but in the case of Majlis Intizamia, Jamia Masjid, Ghulam Mohammad Abad Colony, Lyallpur v. The Secretary to Government of West Pakistan Communication and Works Department (P L D 1967 Lah. 709) it had taken a contrary view. Similarly, in the case of Estate Officer, Government of Pakistan v. Syed Tahir Hussain (P L D 1962 S C 75) this Court, it is said, took the view that occupation by a Government servant of Government owned premises allotted to him, i.e., earmarks for his occupation, can be no more than a tenancy‑at‑will which may be terminated by the State at any time without cause shown. In the judgment of the High Court all these cases were noticed but the High Court chose to rely upon a later decision of this Court in the case of Anwar Hussain Zaidi v. Attaur Rehman and others (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1965), where this Court took the view that where no penalty is prescribed in the agreement itself for the violation of the clause against sub‑letting, the authorities cannot cancel the agreement and exercise their right of re‑entry in case of a violation of such a condition. It cannot, in the circumstances, be said that this Court was not aware of those conflicting decisions. The facts of the decision relied upon by the High Court was on all fours with the facts of the present case and, therefore, this Court upheld the view taken by the High Court. There is no question, therefore, of either any misconception being created in the mind of this Court as a result of any alleged omisssion to notice the conflicting decisions. These conflicting decisions were clearly mentioned in the judgment of the High Court and, therefore, they could not have escaped the notice of this Court. No case has, therefore, been made out for the review of the order of this Court. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.