1983 PLP 3048 (CLC)

The case of the petitioners is that on account of their employment in the Karachi Port Trust, they had been allotted some quarters belong ing to the said Trust. These quarters were in Keamari village. It seems that respondent No. 2 obtained a lease in respect of these quarters. Such transfer of quarters in favour of respondent No. 2 dissatisfied the petitioners and the other employees of the Karachi Port Trust, and the Collective Bargaining Agent took up the matter with the Karachi Port Trust. On 9th November, 1970, the Additional Estate Officer of Karachi Port Trust wrote a letter to the Secretary of respondent No. 2 which reads as follows :‑ "With reference to your letter No. BINS/1/70 dated 4th September, 1970, 1 have to say that the Organization of the Karachi Port Trust Workers has included in its demands that the K. P. T. employees, who are living in quarters in the Outsiders Zone, should be transferred ownership of the quarters. I have, therefore, to request you to kindly enroll the Karachi Port Trust employees living in the Outsiders Zone as members of the Society with the same rights and privileges which are enjoyed by the other members." The petitioners, in the meantime, had also filed suits to restrain both the respondents front ejecting them, but such suits were dismissed on the ground that the same were not maintainable. A further fact merits mention, and that is contained in clause (4) of the agreement entered into between the two respondents. This clause lays down the qualifications for membership of respondent No. 2/Society, and it is stated that such employees of Karachi Port Trust; who had retired, or, are due to retire before the end of December, 1969 and are residing in the "Outsiders Zone" of the quarters were to be offered membership of the Society. Admittedly, the petitioners in these cases retired after 31st December, 1969. The petitioner has a grievance that the lease deed executed between the respondents were invalid, for the reason that the formalities, attend ing transfer, had not been complied with. The petitioner also sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from ejecting him. We had called for parawise comments, which have been submitted by respondent No.

1. This respondent has stated that the qualifications for membership of respondent No. 2/Society is a matter entirely for that Society, and respondent No. I is not at all concerned. In regard to the petitioners' entitlement, it is stated that, since only such employees were to be admitted as members of the respondent No. 2/Society as had, or, were due to retire before 31st December, 1969, the petitioners, or, their pre decessor‑in‑interest were not entitled to become members. In regard to the lease executed between the two respondents, it is stated, in the com ments, that the draft agreement had been approved by respondent No. 1, and, in fact, respondent No. 2 was registered as a Society only after the Government of, Pakistan sanctioned its registration. It is claimed that the lease agreement is valid and legal. Respondent No. I states that he was not interested in evicting the petitioners, and that matter was entirely between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2/Society. The first question, that has engaged our attention, is, whether the agreement of lease entered into between the two respondents was a valid document in law. The learned Advocate has relied on the provisions subsection (2) of section 18 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, which reads as follows :‑ "(2) In the case of every lease of immovable property for a term exceeding twenty‑five years with an option to renew for a like period of twenty‑five and, in the case of every sale or other transfer of any such property, the previous sanction of Govern ment is required." His contention is that previous sanction of the Government had not been obtained. In the comments, submitted by respondent No. 1, the allegations in regard to sanction 'of the Government not having been obtained has been vehemently denied. It is stated affirmatively that Government sanction was obtained, and therefore, the agreement between the two respondents was valid and legal and in full force. A copy of the letter, marked as 'Bb' from the Section Officer of the Government of Pakistan, dated 20th November, 1969, and addressed to the Secretary respondent No. 1, has been placed on the record. The said letter con veys the approval of the Government under section 18(2) of the Karachi Port Trust Act to the proposal for lease of the premises in question to the respondent No. 2/Society. In fact, the respondent No. 2 was registered as a society only after the approval was given by the Government. The first contention, therefore, in regard to the transaction of lease between the two respondents must fail, because this transaction has been entered into after approval by the Government. The next contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, is that total strangers had been given preference in obtaining membership of the respondent/Society, and this has been termed as unjust and discrimina tory. He states that, under the bye‑laws framed by respondent No. 1, the land in Keamari village cannot be given to strangers. In the first place, the names of such strangers, who have obtained membership of the respondent/Society, have not been disclosed. Nor have they been impleaded as respondents. No relief has been sought by the petitioner against the respondent/Society, or, against such supposed members, who had been admitted in the Society without being qualified. In any case, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the qualifications in regard to membership of the Society. Even on that score, it is patent that the petitioners, having retired after December, 1969, are not entitled to become members of the respondent/Society. Instances are not rare when such provisions are inserted in the bye‑laws of societies, because the availability of accommodation may be less, but the retirement from a particular institution is ever increasing. In such circumstances, all the retired personnel could not be accommodated. Even on such ground, this qualification, in regard to tenure of service of the employees of Karachi Port Trust, does not appear to be unreasonable, much less invalid. We see no force in these petitions, which we had, by a short order, dismissed on 4th May, 1983. M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.