2001 PLP 677 (CLC)

Raja Dilshad A. Khan for Respondent No.3. M.A. Zafar for Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 15th December, 2000. On the basis of an auction for renting out residential Unit No.23 for rental purposes, the petitioner claims to have given the highest offer of Rs.900 per month, as a consequence of which, he seeks a direction to the respondents for the delivery of possession thereof.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he having given the highest bid, the officials/respondents are duty bound to deliver him the possession of the said unit which is in possession of respondent No.4, whereas the case of respondent No.4 is that it is a small residential unit which was obtained by the petitioner on rent by suppressing material facts and misrepresenting that he had no other property and that he was acting and fighting for one Ilam Din, with whom, there was background of long litigation with respondent No.4. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is neither entitled to relief from this Court in writ jurisdiction nor this Court can embark upon to resolve the factual controversies.

3. In the context of the prayer made by the petitioner, I need not enter into the controversial factual realm of the matter nor can this Court embark upon such inquiry but one thing is quite evident that civil litigation regarding the same residential unit have been going on between the parties. On 16‑11‑1983, the Chief Administrator of Auqaf Department after canceling of the tenancy from the name of Akbar Ali Shah had transferred the same in favour of respondent No.4. This was, of course, after the auction, dated 12‑I1‑1983. This order was challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition No.2111 of .1985 which was disposed of as not. pressed on 29‑9‑1986 in view of the cancellation of the impugned order therein and to seek the departmental remedy in the matter. Respondent No.4 had filed a also got himself impleaded as party, during the pendency of which, an order was passed by the Chief Administrator on 26‑9‑1989 that in case he withdraws the suit, order, dated 21‑4‑1985 shall stand cancelled. It may be noted that by order dated 21‑4‑1985 it was directed that respondent No.4 should vacate the disputed premises and be given to the petitioner. In view of this representation by the Department, respondent No.4 withdrew his appeal from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad which concerned with the matter of temporary injunction on 2‑10‑1989 and thereafter the suit was withdrawn on 30‑10‑1989 in the presence of the parties. Thus, an order adverse to the interest of the petitioner had been passed which was not challenged in any appropriate proceedings in the Department or other forum. In the presence of such an order in favour of respondent No.4, the petitioner cannot seek a direction for delivery of possession of the disputed premises which continues ' in the tenancy of respondent No.4 and possession.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 has adverted my attention to certain documents appended with the written statement to show that the petitioner who was an Assistant Professor was man of means and status and had been allotted a plot by Faisalabad Development Authority, Faisalabad and had also some ancestral property, he made a misrepresentation and wrong declaration for the tenancy of the disputed premises before the Auqaf Department that he had no property. According to him, such a conduct should disentitle him seeking discretionary relief from this Court.

5. I tend to refrain from making any comment as to the conduct of the petitioner except to observe that Annexure "R.4/3" does show the allotment of a plot in favour of the petitioner whereas the disputed premises are stated A to be a very small unit. In the circumstances, the direction sought by the petitioner cannot be issued nor the relief prayed for granted to him. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑43/L Petition dismissed.