P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

LARI, J.

The petitioner is an employee of the Govern ment of Pakistan. He was allotted quarter No. 147/6 la, Jacob Lines under the rules for the allocation of residential accommodation in Karachi to the Central Government ser vants. It came to the notice of the relevant authority that the petitioner was living with his father and had sublet the quarter to one Muharram Ali Tailor. An enquiry was insti tuted and ultimately the allotment in his favour was cancelled and he was called upon to vacate the quarter. The petitioner preferred two appeals allowed under the rules, but the order of cancellation of allotment was upheld. As a last resort the petitioner filed this petition. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that allocation rules are invalid and that the allotment which created a tenancy in his favour could not be terminated under these rules. , It is true that the rules do not indicate as to under what provisions of law they have been framed but they are clearly referable to Article 182 of the Constitution which has replaced section 245 of the Government of India Act. These rules were presumably framed under Rule 45 of the Fundamental Rules which owed their legality to section 245 of the Government of India Act. The quarter was admittedly allotted to the petitioner under the provisions of allocation Rules. Rule 16 provides that accommodation may not be sublet or otherwise be subjected to monetary transactions. It further provides that no trade, business or manufacture may be carried on in any accommodation excepting tile exercise by a member of the Central Government servant's family of the profession of Advocate, Physician, Surgeon or Dentist. If any Government employee committed breach of this rule allotment in his favour was liable to cancellation by the Estate Officer. It is under this Rule that the relevant authorities have cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner. Rule 20 of these rules provides that in case allocation is cancelled the accommodation shall be vacated within two months of the cancellation. The question whether there was any subletting by the petitioner is a question of fact in which we are not entitled to go unless there be a plea of mala fide. This is not so in this case and the two appellate authorities provided by the Rules did come to a finding that there was actual subletting. That being the case the relevant authorities were entitled to cancel the allocation and the petitioner had to vacate the premises within two months which he failed to do. The next submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the Rules do not provide that the Estate Officer or anybody authorised by the Central Government 'could eject the petitioner without having recourse to a Court of law and that the Estate Officer in any case was not entitled to use force in ejecting the petitioner. It is true that the Rules- are silent on the point and there is no specific pro vision authorising the Estate Officer to eject an employee. Under the common law prevalent in England ft is well estab lished that a master, can eject his servant from the premises allotted to him in his capacity as a servant without recourse to a Court of law and with the use of minimum, force subject always to the condition that in doing so the aster did, not commit an offence. The celebrated case on the point is that of Hemmings and Wife v. The Stoke Poges Golf Club, Limited and another ((1920) 1 K B D 720). We are not bound to apply the principle of common law unless we are satisfied that it is in accord with equity and good conscience, The Government reserves certain accommodations for the convenience of his employees. It is necessary that such an accommodation would easily and quickly be vacated if and when an employee loses right to retain it otherwise the very purpose of Allocation Rules would be defeated. The same convenience is needed by every master who allots ail accommodation to a servant in the belief that the servant will occupy the premises so long as he is a servant and will vacate it, the, moment he loses the position. After careful consideration we have come to the conclusion that this principle of common law, is applicable to conditions in Pakistan and should be acted upon by-Courts. The counsel for the petitioner expressed an apprehension that even an offence might be committed in the course of evic tion by force. There is no evidence or circumstance before us to persuade us to believe that the Central Government or its agent would commit an offence. The High Court cannot take any action under Article 170 of the Constitution unless it be satisfied that some illegal wrong has been inflicted or l is about to be inflicted on the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to establish that any illegal wrong in the nature of an offence is about to be committed. In view of the above there is no force in the petition and it is hereby dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.