1968 SCMR 155 (PLP)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-The dispute in this case relates to a room in property No. P-63 of Ward No. 2, Lyallpur City. The building, which is a composite double-storeyed building situated in a predominantly commercial area, Gole Cloth Bazar, consists of two shops and two residential units. The room in dispute is on the ground floor adjoining shop No. 1 the shop No. 2 has also, it appears, a similar room adjoining it. The petitioner claims that these rooms were used by the occupiers of shops as Store rooms appurtenant to their respective shop rooms. Shop No. 1, it is claimed, was in Vie possession of the petitioner alone with the store room attached to it. The petitioner let it out to Messrs Rehmat UllAh and K. R. Printing Cor poration as tenants. Subsequently when the petitioner tried to evict his tenants the tenants made over possession of the premises in their occupation to the respondent No, 1 herein, who set up the case that this room was never transferred to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1, it appears, was in occupation of a residential unit on the first floor and had originally been transferred the building jointly with one Ferozuddin. But, it appears, that the final order of the Settlement Authorities regarding the transfer of the shop No. 1 was in favour of the petitioner. Against this order the respondent Ismail moved the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. This was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the 8th of December 1961. The respondent then brought a second writ petition in 1962. This was also dismissed in the High Court both by a learned Single Judge and by a Letters Patent Bench, with the result that the transfer of the shop No. 1 in favour of the petitioner became confirmed. Ismail, however, after obtaining possession from the tenants Messrs Rehmat Ullah and K. R. Printing Corporation again set up the plea that he was the transferee of the room annexed to shop No. 1 and resisted the execution of the ejectment decree which the petitioner had obtained for the eviction of his tenants from that room. He also filed a civil suit for a declaration and an injunction. In the suit a temporary injunc tion was also asked for. This application was dismissed on the 1st of October 1963, because, the writ petition filed by him in 1962 against the transfer order in favour of the petitioner had already been admitted for hearing in the High Court and an ad interim order passed therein for maintenance of status quo. After this order for the maintenance of status quo the suit was also withdrawn and then an application was made to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to delete the words "up to the lane" occurring in the P. T. O. issued to the petitioner in respect of the shop transferred to him. This application was only ordered to be kept pending till the disposal of the writ in the High Court. . But even from this order the respondent went up in appeal and the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who not fully appreciat ing the nature of the dispute between the parties, took the view that the words "up to the lane" were a subsequent interpolation in the P. T. O., because the previous Additional Settlement Commissioner had actually transferred the said room to the respondent Ismail. The petitioner having failed throughout before the higher Settlement Authorities as also in the High Court to get this order reversed now seeks special leave to appeal. His contention appears to be that it is the room which was attached to the back of shop No. 2, which was transferred to Muhammad Ismail, and not the room attached to the back of shop No, 1, which was transferred to the petitioner. Unfortunately no accurate or authentic plan of the-premises has been filed in this case to appreciate as to what is the exact position with regard to these rooms. The plan that has been filed with the record is a plan which has been prepared at the instance of the petitioner, The petitioner, however, states that there must be an authentic plan of the premises with the Settlement Autho rities and if he is, granted some time he would be able to produce a copy of it to establish his contention that the room that was transferred to the respondent Muhammad Ismail was the room behind shop No.

2. We are of the view that, without an authentic and proper plan, it is difficult to appreciate the true position with regard to the rooms in dispute. Hence the adjournment prayed for is granted. After the plan has been filed office will fix another date.