P L D 1963 (W (PLP)

S. A. Nusrat for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th November 1962. WAHIDUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑Sheikh Abdul Sattar petitioner, the occupant of flat No. 11, Bombay Building, No. 1, Preedy Quarters, Karachi, is a tenant of those promises since 1945. It was allotted to him on the 27th of April 1945, by the Rent Controller of Karachi. These, premises were requisitioned by Mr. Nasir Ahmed, Rent Controller, Karachi, by an order dated the 14th of April 1961, on the ground that he was satisfied that accommodation in the said flat was surplus to the requirements of the landlord and tenant Abdul Sattar. The petitioner challenged this order before the then Administrator of Karachi in Appeal No. 7/5/61‑Dev. This was dismissed by order dated the l7th of May 1961. The learned Administrator came to the conclusion that the petitioner had shifted from the premises in dispute to some other place and he has given its possession to Mr. Ali Muhammad Akhund, First Class Sub‑Judge, Karachi, without the consent of the landlord. He further observed that it had been established that the petitioner is now practising in Hyderabad and repelled his contention that his two sisters were still living in the flat and he was in physical possession of the flat in question. The learned Administrator further repelled the contention that unless accommodation was found for Mr. Ali Muhammad Akhund he cannot be dispossessed because techni cally he is a trespasser and it is not necessary to find accom modation for a trespasser. The petitioner seeks to challenge the above‑mentioned requisition order in this writ petition. 2. Mr. Ibadat Yar Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has attacked the impugned order on three‑fold grounds. Firstly, that the order in question is mala fide because it was passed by Mr. Nasir Ahmed, the present Rent Controller, to victimise Mr. Ali Muhammad Akhund who bad dismissed his Suit No. 258 of 1960 by judgment dated the 28th of May 1960 ; secondly, that the observations of the Rent Controller that there was surplus accommodation with Mr. Abdul Sattar and the finding of the learned Administrator that Mr. Abdul Sattar was no longer living in this flat is based on no evidence ; and lastly, that the provisions of section 11 of the Sind Requisi tion of Land Act have not been observed in the matter under consideration. 3. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the question of the mala fide nature of the impugned orders. It will be sufficient to observe that the Rent Controller in the present case did not show any courtesy whatsoever to Mr. Ali Muhammad Akhund who was at the material time holding a judicial post in the District Courts at Karachi, and even if he was occupying the flat in dispute without the consent of the landlord, he as a public servant was entitled to accom modation in the City of Karachi. Neither the learned Rent Controller nor the Administrator considered this aspect of the case and have not mentioned in the impugned orders that the flat in question was used by one of the Judicial Officers posted in Karachi. 4. The contention of Mr. Ibadat Yar Khan that Shaikh Abdul Sattar the petitioner was in occupation of the premises in dispute is fully borne out by the evidence on the file of the Rent Controller. The attorney of the Rent Controller admitted in his examination‑in‑chief that the wife of Sheikh Abdul Sattar was seen by him living. in the house in question. Shaikh Abdul Sattar also stated on oath that he was in occupation of the premises in dispute which was taken by him for the accom modation of his two brothers and two sisters. One of his brothers has shifted to Hyderabad ; one of the sisters is married to Mr. Ali Muhammad Akhund and the second brother had gone to the United Kingdom for education. He stated on oath in clear terms that he was living with his family with one of his sisters in the said flat and was not in occupation of any premises in Karachi except the one in question. The petitioner further stated on oath that his family was staying in Karachi and he was practising both in Karachi and Hyderabad. He also stated that since no accommodation was provided to Mr. Ali Muhammad Akhund by the local administration, he was accommodated in one of the rooms of the said flat. In the face of this unim peachable evidence it is difficult for us to follow the reasoning of the learned Administrator that the petitioner has parted with the possession of the premises is dispute or that Mr. Ali Muhammad Akhund was in occupation of the flat in question as a trespasser. The learned Administrator failed to take into consideration the statement of the attorney of the landlord in which he has clearly admitted that he had seen the wife of the petitioner living in the flat in question. This proves beyond doubt that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises in dispute when it was requisitioned by the local administration for public purposes. We are, therefore, satisfied that the, findings of the learned Rent Controller and of the Administrator, cannot be borne out from the evidence on the record. On the contrary the evidence points to a different direction altogether. In these circumstances we have come to the conclusion that the very foundation on which the property in dispute was requi sitioned did not exist and the impugned orders suffer for this reason. 5. On the view which we have taken of the matter, we are satisfied that Shaikh Abdul Sattar was in occupation of the premises in dispute and Mr. Akhund was only accommodated by him to stay in the flat in question as he was his brother‑in‑law and had no accommodation at his disposal. It was, therefore, the bounden duty of the local administration to provide alter native accommodation to Shaikh Abdul Sattar and to consider his inconvenience under section 11 of the Sind Requisition of Land Act. As this provision of law was disregarded in the present case, the impugned orders cannot be upheld and must be quashed. 6. Accordingly the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petition is allowed with costs. K. B. A./A. H. Petition accepted.