P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

KHAMISANI, J.‑The petitioner owns bungalow No. 271 on Goa Mill Road, Karachi. This bungalow consists of four flats all of which had been given on rent to the tenants. The petitioner has also another bungalow No. 278 which adjoins her bungalow No.

277. She lives with her family in bungalow No.

278. On 11th February 1961, the Rent Controller gave a notice to the petitioner informing her that the requisition proceedings in respect of two flats in bungalow No. 277 were pending and that the flats in the event of being vacated by the previous tenants should not be let out on rent to any other person. The Rent Controller finally passed an order on 1st March 1961 by which one flat on the ground‑floor and one on the first floor of bungalow No. 277 were requisitioned under the Sind Requisition Act of 1947. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order of requisition to the Administrator, Karachi, which was dismissed on 20th April 1961. Being aggrieved both with the order of the Rent Controller as well as the order of the Administrator, the petitioner filed this petition on 25th April 1961 with a view to secure a writ of certiorari and have the orders passed by the respondents quashed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has based this petition on the following three points (1) That the procedure adopted for the requisition of the flats was illegal. (2) That the flats were not required for the purpose men tioned in the order as the possession of the flats has not been given to any allottee so far. (3) That the bona fide needs of the petitioner have not been considered at the time of passing the order of requisition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out to us any provision of law under which he could support his point No. 1 mentioned above. What he contended at the bar was that a pro per order had not been passed under the provisions of Sind Requesition Act of 1947. We have seen both the orders dated 11th February 1961 and 1st March 1961 passed by the Rent Controller and we see nothing wrong with them.

4. We also see no force in the second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the first place the allegation is denied but even if we were to accept what is urged, the possession of the flats requisitioned could not possibly be given to any allottee as the order directing status quo to be maintained was passed by the High Court immediately after the Rent Controller bad taken possession of these flats. The Rent Con troller could not possibly give the possession of these flats to anybody in view of the said direction of the Court. 5 The third point advanced by the learned counsel is also not such which would entitle her to the writ prayed for. According to him, the petitioner bad a large growing family and that bungalow No. 278 which was 1n her occupation was not sufficient to meet with her requirements. The argument advanced was that the Rent Controller at the time of requisitioning bungalow No. 277 should have considered this fact and should have desisted from requisitioning the two flats which were required by the petitioner for her bona fade use. We have applied our mind to this argument of the learned counsel also but we see no force in it. The inconvenience of the type complained of by the petitioner has necessarily to be caused in every case of requisi tion. Two flats, out of bungalow No. 277, are still in the occupation of the petitioner's tenants and if the petitioner does require extra accommodation for her bona fide use she can approach the Rent Controller under section 10 of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act and ask for a certificate for ejectment of those tenants. The Full Bench decision in Syed Raft Ali v. Rent Controller, Karachi (Second Appeal No. 76 of 1961) is also against the petitioner on this point. We, therefore, see no substance in the writ petition and dismiss it accordingly. We, however, make no order as to costs in view of the circumstances of this case. S. B./A. H. Petition dismissed.