P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

MUHAMMAD BACHAL, J.--‑On the 29th May 1954, the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi, allotted the tenement in dispute to the petitioner on usual terms and con ditions, ordering that the respondent (2) should be ejected from the evacuee premises. On the 9th June 1954, the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner Karachi issued the allotment order in favour of the petitioner on certain terms and conditions. Clause 10 runs as under :‑ "The Rehabilitation Commissioner or the Deputy Rehabi litation Commissioner shall have the inherent right to cancel any allotment which is subsequently discovered to have been obtained by fraud or is found to be against Govern ment Policy . . . . . ." The Additional Custodian rejected the Revision application of the Respondent (2), but ordered that he should not be ejected from the premises until his application under section 18 of the Evacuee Property Ordinance was decided. On the 8th December 1955 the Custodian ordered on the revision applica tion filed by the respondent (2) that he was entitled to remove the materials of the constructions made by him or to sell them to the allottee. He observed: "While parting with the case I cannot help feeling that the applicant is entitled to some consideration and should not be thrown out of the streets. He is a refugee and has been staying there for a fairly long time with his aged parents. I therefore recommend that the Rehabilitation Authorities may please provide him with an alternative accommodation before evicting him from the premises." The petitioner moved the Rehabilitation Commissioner for ejectment of the respondent (2) and give possession to him. The Rehabilitation Commissioner, respondent (1), issued notices to the petitioner and the respondent (2) and heard the arguments of both the parties. On the 6th June 1956 after considering the observations of the Custodian and the fact that if the petitioner was put in possession of the plot, the transac tion will be equivalent to allotting an evacuee plot to the petitioner which was against the public policy for the last two years, he ordered the respondent No. (2) to continue in occu pation and refused to put petitioner into possession. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari questioning this order. It is contended that the order of the respondent (1) was without jurisdiction. The respondent (2) could only be ejected under section 8 (2) (b) Rehabilitation Ordinance (XIX of 1948) which runs as follows :‑ "A Rehabilitation Commissioner may (b) eject summarily with the use of such force as may be necessary any person in possession of any abandoned land, building, business or undertaking, whose possession thereof has not been autho rised by the Rehabilitation Authority, or to whom such land, building, business or undertaking has been allotted whether' the stock‑in‑trade or machinery involved in the business or undertaking has been sold to him or not but who has failed to observe any of the conditions of the allotment, or who has subsequently been found in the opinion of the Rehabili tation Authority to be an unsuitable person to hold the property so allotted, or any person in possession of any property which, after it has been allotted to him as evacuee property, has lost the character of being such property either by a declaration or by the operation of any other law for the time being in force." The procedure for summary ejectment under this is laid down in rule 6 of the Rehabilitation Rules 1951 as under :‑ "(a) The Rehabilitation Authority shall in the first instance issue a notice to the unauthorised person to show cause, within a period which shall not be less than 7 days why he should not be ejected ; (b) After consideration of the representation, if any, made by or on behalf of the unauthorised person and after taking such evidence as he may consider necessary the Rehabilitation Authority may make an order under clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 8 which shall be served in the manner prescribed in Rule 8". The respondent (1) could under this rule refuse to make an order for ejectment of the respondent (2) after considera tion of his representation. His order shows that after the allotment order, circumstances changed which justified his order for the reasons stated in his order. The learned advocate for the petitioner could not show any authority under which the Rehabilitation Commissioner was bound to put him into possession after the allotment order when under clause 10 of the terms and conditions the allotment in favour of the petitioner could be cancelled. The result is that the petition is dismissed with costs. A. H. Petition dismissed.