P L D 1956 (W (PLP)

KAYANI, J.‑

The petitioner Zahir‑ud‑Din received the allotment of a house in Krishan Nagar, described as No. 9, Siri Ram Road, from the Rehabilitation Department on the 17th of January 1948, to the extent of four rooms in the Kay middle storey and one room in the uppermost storey. Apparently another part of the same house, consisting of one room, one store, one kitchen and one gallery, was allotted to Shams‑ud‑Din, respondent No.

2. On the 24th of March 1954, the Rent Inspector submitted a fresh survey report, suggesting that the room on the topmost floor was surplus to the needs of the petitioner and might be given to Shams‑ud‑Din. The Deputy Rehabilitation Com missioner agreed, whereupon notice to evacuate was issued to the petitioner on the 7th of April 1954. The petitioner made an application to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commis sioner, who, on the 22nd of June 1954, reviewed his previous order and cancelled the allotment of the surplus room in favour of Shams‑ud‑Din. This led to an appeal by Shams‑ud‑Din to the Rehabilitation Commissioner. It was heard by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner and accepted on the 13th of October 1954, on the ground that a review petition is confined only to the correction of errors and the supplying of omissions. Against this order the petitioner went in revision to the Rehabilitation Commissioner, who, on the 4th of April 1955, rejected the petition, observing that the petitioner was in occupation of four rooms, one barsati and one kitchen, while Shams‑ud‑Din had only one room, one store, one kitchen and one gallery, and that if one of the petitioner's rooms was given to Shams-ud‑Din, it would be an equitable arrangement since Shams‑ud‑Din had a family of seven members. The present writ petition has been brought against this order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner on the ground that there was no jurisdiction to eject under section 8 of the Rehabilitation Ordinance. The power to eject is exercised under subsection (2) (b) of that section and can be exercised only on the following four grounds :‑ (1) That the possession of the occupant is unauthorised; (2) that he has failed to observe any of the conditions of the allotment ; (3) that he has subsequently been found in the opinion of the Rehabilitation Authority to be an unsuitable person to hold the property so allotted ; and (4) that the property in question has lost the character of being evacuee property. The only ground which can apply to the petitioner is that in respect of this property he is an unsuitable person. If a house is beyond the needs of an occupant, he may be required to change it for a smaller house. Alternatively, instead of changing the whole house, he may be required to restrict his possession to only a part thereof. It was argued, however, on the strength of Khadim Mohy‑ud‑Din v. Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lyallpur (P L D 1956 Lah. 479), that "the unsuitability of an allottee must be determined with refe rence to his personal qualities". In that case an allottee was required to vacate a house because it was required for a public purpose, and Yaqub Ali, J. with whom Ortcheson, J. concurred, observed that "the unsuitability of any allottee must be determined with reference to his personal qualities and not with reference to the object for which the property allotted to him is required by the Rehabilitation Department". In this contest, if emphasis is laid on the second part of the observation, we respect fully agree with it. Without that qualification, however, we cannot agree that the unsuitability of an allottee has reference only to his personal qualities. Learned counsel for the petitioner thought that personal qualities are relatable to moral character. If, for instance, an allottee uses the house for immoral purposes, he will be an unsuitable person within the meaning of the law. We cannot accept this argument because what section 8 (2) (b) requires is not only that he should be an unsuitable person but that he should be "an unsuitable person to hold the property so allotted". In other words, suitability is relatable to the property. A blacksmith, as my brother Sharif put it, may be a very suitable person so far as his, profession goes, but if he has been, by an oversight, allotted a house on Lawrence Road, although he has the means to pay its rent, the Rehabilita tion Authority can very reasonably regard him unsuitable for a house in that locality. We, therefore, think that the Rehabilitation Commis sioner has not exceeded his jurisdiction. A minor argument was also addressed to us in relation to the notice of ejectment. It was pointed out that when the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner first agreed with the Rent Inspector's note of the 24th of March 1954, and gave the surplus room to Shams‑ud‑Din, he did so without notice to the petitioner. It is true that rule 6 of the Rehabilitation Rules requires a notice of seven days "to the unauthorized person" to show cause why he should not be ejected. We doubt whether this particular provision would apply to an authorized person, but even if it did, the petitioner has been through so many proceedings that by this time he has had sufficient notice of what is intended to be done to him, and has had sufficient opportunity of showing cause. The petition is dismissed with costs. A. H. Petition dismissed.