P L D 1958 (W (PLP)

The High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 170 of the Constitution, does not sit as a Court of review or revision over the Rehabilitation authorities or other Government Departments or Tribunals and bodies not subordinate to it, and, therefore, when a decision or order of such an authority or body is questioned before it, it will not disturb the decision or order on the ground that any inference drawn by it from the evidence or circumstances before it was even grossly wrong. Fazal Din v. Rehabilitation Commissioner : Writ Petition No. 644 of 1956, distinguished. Saeed Akhtar for Petitioner. The shop in question was allotted to one Muhammad Siddiq, a refugee from Batala, District Gurdaspur. Muhammad Siddiq carried on cloth business in the shop in partnership with the petitioner, Muhammad Sharif. It is alleged that some time in the beginning of 1954 the partnership between the petitioner and Muhammad Siddiq was dissolved as a result of which the petitioner became solely entitled to the cloth business. The petitioner states that he applied in March 1954 to the Rehabilitation authorities for allotment to him of the shop on the ground that Muhammad Siddiq had ceased to have any interest in the business which was being carried on the shop. The Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sialkot, rejected the petitioner's application and passed an order of his ejectment. An appeal against the order of ejectment was dismissed by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sialkot, on the 17th of January 1956, and a revision petition against the latter order was rejected on the 8th of July 1956. The petitioner has now come to this Court under Article 170 of the Constitution, praying that the order of his ejectment be quashed and a direction issued to the Rehabilitation Department to restrain it from disturbing his possession. The petitioner contends that in the circumstances of this case, his possession cannot be considered to be unauthorised because he has been long in possession and has been paying rent to the Rehabilitation authorities and, therefore, the Rehabilitation authorities have no jurisdiction to eject him. "Authorised posses sion" can only mean possession under a valid authority. As a rule, only an allotment order is the authority by means of which the Rehabilitation Department authorises persons to take posses sion of evacuee property. It is not inconceivable that there may be a case where implied authorisation by the Rehabilitation Department may be inferable from the conduct of the 'Rehabilitation authorities. It must, however, be noted that the conduct of these authorities alone can lead to such an inference and not the conduct of a squatter or other person in possession. Again, the inference must not be only very strong but also the only possible inference from the conduct of the Rehabilitation authorities. It is also to be noted that this Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 170 of the Constitution, does not sit as a Court of review or revision over the Rehabilitation authorities or other Government Departments or Tribunals and bodies no subordinate, to this Court; and, therefore, when a decision or order of such an authority or body is questioned before this Court, it will not, disturb the decision or order on the ground that any inference drawn by it from the evidence or circumstance before it was even grossly wrong. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Fazal Din v. Rehabilitation Commissioner (1). That case is very obviously distinguishable from the present case. There, the petitioner ; (a) had been in possession of two shops for seven or eight years ; (b) subsequently he was asked by the Rehabilitation autho rities to vacate only one of the two shops ; (c) all along rent of the shop was regularly realised from the petitioner ; and (d) he had "all along been treated as a person authorised to remain in possession". None of these circumstances is present in the instant case. Here Writ Petition No. 644 of 1956 as soon as the Rehabilitation authorities came to know of the petitioner's possession, they ordered his ejectment. Mere payment of rent by an unauthorised person for the period during which he has been in possession does not confer upon him the authority, either in law or in reason, to continue in possession in future. He is, in law; liable to pay rent by way of compensation for use and occupation even as a trespasser or a wrong‑doer. There is no substance in this petition and it is hereby rejected. K. B. A. Petition rejected.