P L D 1979 Lahore 467 (PLP)

This civil revision is directed against an order of an Additional District Judge of Lahore, whereby he dismissed the first appeal of the petitioner, Iris Sammuel Gill, against an order of a Civil Judge rejecting her plaint in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent, namely, the Government of Punjab, from ejecting her from a residential quarter belonging to the Government.

2. The residential quarter in dispute was allotted to the petitioner's father, Michael Clement, when he was employed as Superintendent of Accounts in the Government Printing Press at Lahore. He retired from service in the year 1976 but he and his family continue to live in the quarter. The petitioner, who is his daughter, is also a Government employee. She applied for the allotment of the quarter in her own name but her request was turned down. Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of the Provincial Government to allot the quarter to her, she brought the suit out of which the present revision has arisen.

2. The suit was resisted by the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that she had no title to, or right in, the quarter in dispute and as such there was no cause of action in her favour. This plea was upheld by the learned Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit, and he rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As already stated, his order has also been upheld, in appeal, by the Additional District Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under the policy framed by the Government for allotment of residential accommodation to its employees the petitioner, being the daughter of the last allottee and a Government employee herself, was entitled to the allotment of the quarter in dispute but the same was denied to her without any legal justification. He did not produce any document spelling out the policy relied upon by him. Therefore, it cannot be said that in refusing allotment of disputed quarter to the petitioner, the respondent has departed from its policy on the subject.

4. The petitioner's father occupied the quarter in question as a licensee. According to subsection (1) of section 4 of the West Pakistan Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance his licence stood revoked on his retirement., Under subsection (2) of section 4 ibid, the petitioner's father was bound to put the Government into possession of the quarter in dispute after the determination of his licence and as he did not do so, the Government is authorized to recover its possession by evicting him. Since his family members, including the petitioner, were inducted into the quarter by him (petitioner's father), after the revocation of his licence each one of them is to be treated as an unauthorised occupant within the meaning of sub-clause (ii) of clause (l') of section 2 of the Ordinance. Under section 5 of the Ordinance, if they refuse or fail to vacate the quarter they can be evicted by the Government. Section 6 of the Ordinance provides that for the purpose of recovering possession of any land or building under the provisions of section 4 or section 5, an officer authorised by the Government may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. According to subsection (2) of section 11- of the Ordinance, no suit is competent against any person in respect of anything which is, in good faith, done or intended to be done under the Ordinance.

5. It would, therefore, appear, that the petitioner has no vested right in the quarter in dispute. She it staying there as an unauthorised occupant. The respondent is, therefore, entitled to evict her from the said quarter under the provisions of the Ordinance which also do not allow the institution of any suit in respect of anything, to good faith, done or intended to be done under the Ordinance. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. As there is no substance in this revision, it is dismissed in limine. s. Q.?????? Petition dismissed.