1976 PLP 476 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed for challenging the validity of the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha, passed on the 9th of December 1972, in relation to a house situated in Block No. 5, Sargodha, and bearing No. 4‑S‑

100. The petitioner claims that he was in possession of the ground floor of the said premises under an allotment order issued on the 6th of July 1957. The first floor was in occupation of two other persons. When settlement operations started, the petitioner, who is a non -claimant displaced person, filed a NCH form on 16‑11‑

59. The respondent No. 3, who also claimed to be in occupation of a portion of the said pro perty, submitted a C H form. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by his order of the 24th of December 1959, transferred the entire premises to, the respondent No. 3 Abdul Rahim on the ground that he was the only claimant and the others were all non‑claimants who had not filed any forms. This order also recites that when the Deputy Settlement Commissioner himself went to inspect the premises, the occupants of the ground floor "made good their escape a moment before". The petitioner did not challenge this order until towards the end of 1971 when he filed an appeal against the said order. This appeal was allowed, even though it was a time‑barred appeal, and the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated the 24th of December 1959, was set aside with a direction that the matter be decided afresh, after giving notice to all affected persons. The respondent No. 3 went up in revision from this order before the Settlement and ' Rehabilitation Co M‑missioner who accepted the same and set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the ground that there was no sufficient cause warranting condonation of delay in the filing of an appeal after a lapse of more than twelve years. The petitioner came up to the High Court against this order, but his writ petition was dismissed. He now seeks special leave to appeal. It appears that in. the year 19‑71 the petitioner also filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Sargodha, for a declaration that be was an occupant of the property in dispute and could not be dispossessed of the same save in due course of law. According to para. 2 of the plaint filed by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner had admitted that he was in occupation of the house as a tenant of respondent No. 3 who had, on the 10th of September 1971, sold the property to respondent No.

4. In the circumstances, since the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between him and the respondent No. 3, he also became a tenant of the transferee from respondent No. 3 and the transferee could only evict him in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, however, contends that he came to know of the transfer in favour of respondent No. 3 only when he handed over possession to respondent No. 4, the purchaser, from him and then immediately applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the disposal of his N. C. H. form. He was told to file an appeal. He, therefore, went up in appeal before the Additional Settle ment Commissioner who condoned the delay, entertained appeal and remanded the case back to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner and the High Court have not taken all these facts into consideration in coming to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Be that as it may, if as stated by the High Court it is correct that the petitioner "accepted respondent No. 3 as his landlord in unequivocal terms" in the plaint filed by him before the Civil Judge, Sargodha and "only prayed that his possession may not be disturbed except in due course of law", then this amount to a clear waiver of the rights, if any, possessed by the petitioner for the transfer of the premises. He clearly acquiesced in the transfer and accepted the transferee as his landlord. He could not thereafter reagitate the question of the transfer. These facts also establish that he had knowledge of the transfer much earlier and, therefore, the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court were right in holding that the Additional Settlement Commissioner was not justified in condoning a delay of, twelve years. This petition is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.