P L D 1980 Peshawar 278 (PLP)

Before dilating upon the present case, it will not be irrelevant to take note of the previous rent proceedings concerning the bungalow in question. The petitioner gave the bungalow on rent to Mrs. I. Khan. She is the mother of Danish, the auction purchaser and wife of Ghulam Muhammad. In those rent proceedings, Ghulam Muhammad was the attorney of Mrs. I. Khan. The petitioner sought the ejectment of Mrs. I. Khan that she is running hostel in the bungalow while it was given to her for residential purpose. The learned trial Judge dismissed the eviction application. The petitioner went in appeal before the learned District Judge, before whom Ghulam Muhammad, the husband and attorney of Mrs. I. Khan offered oath to the petitioner that if he says that the bungalow was given to Mrs. I. Khan only for residential purpose and for no other purpose, his application be decreed. The petitioner took oath accordingly and in consequence the learned District Judge allowed the appeal in the following terms:

"In view of the above statements of the Special Attorney of the respondent and the appellant S. M. Zaffar, the appeal is accepted with costs and the petition of the petitioner-appellant is decreed." As this order assumed finality, Mrs. I. Khan filed writ petition in this Court challenging it as being without jurisdiction. But a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the petition, vide judgment dated` 24-2-1976 in Writ Petition No. 67 of 1975. Mrs. I. Khan then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan but the same too was rejected, vide judgment-dated 8-7-1978 in C. P. for S. P. to Appeal No. 60 of 1976. This judgment is reported in 1976 S C M R

457. The concluding para of this judgment reads thus; "The petition is without merit and is dismissed, but we give the petitioner four months time to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the third respondent on the condition that she would pay the rent due from her until the date of the delivery of the possession of the demised premises to the third respondent." I now revert to the present proceedings. I have formed the impression that in the present case the learned Civil Judge had not acted as a judicial officer. It was not a secret fact that the bungalow in question was the subject-matter of rent proceedings between the petitioner and Mrs. I. Khan. As noted above, Danish, the auction-purchaser was the son of Mrs. I. Khan the tenant of the bungalow, whose efforts to save her eviction from the bungalow up to the Supreme Court proved infructuous, and it was thereafter that the respondent-Bank' brought the present proceedings against the petitioner for the recovery of the amount due from him and the amount was decreed in favour of the Bank, but as the interest on the amount was yet to be recovered from the petitioner, the Court attached the bungalow and in consequence its auction was confirmed in favour of Danish. All these will show that the officials of the Bank and Danish had joined hands to deprive the petitioner of the bungalow. This view is the possible view in the circumstances of the case. As noted above Danish is the son of Mrs. I. Khan and as her effort to save her ejectment in the previous rent proceedings did not bear fruit, she or for that matter her son Danish adopted the course of depriving the peti tioner of the bungalow and in this respect obviously they sought the support of the Bank officials who proposed the bungalow in question for attachment with which the Court agreed and in consequence Mrs. I. Khan or for that matter her son Danish succeeded in the auction to purchase it for Rs. 35,000 as their highest bid in the auction. This price of the bungalow is as a meagre and petty amount as it is highly ridiculous and fantastic, because the bungalow in question bearing No. 116 is situated in the Risalpur Cantonment and its area measures 10 kanals and the covered area of the main building is 6,000 sq. ft. while the covered area of its annexed is 3,000 sq. ft. There are also servant quarters attached with the bungalow. The annual rental value of the bungalow ha been assessed by the Cantonment Board at more than two lac rupees. The bungalow in question is therefore a costly property worth lacs of rupees. These facts are not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank and he expressed his sorrow over the sale of the bungalow at the instance of the Bank. He conceded that the auction of a highly valuable bungalow as in the present case for Rs. 35,000 is just a farce. It is clear from the record of the present case that the executing Court has shown undue indulgence to 'the auction-purchaser. Order XXI, rule 851 C. P. C. says that the full amount of purchase money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes of the fifteenth day from the sale of the property. Now the bungalow in question was sold in, auction to Danish on 4-2-1978. He was therefore liable to pay the purchase money on 19-2-1978. But the Court granted him time up to 19-4-1978, i.e., he was given time for about two and a half months to deposit the purchase money. Rule

86. Order XXI says that if the purchase money is not deposited within the stipulated period of 15 days, the property shall be resold. In the circumstances, there was every justification for the Court to direct its re-sale. It cannot be said that the Court was unaware that the bungalow is a highly valuable property and as the sum of Rs. 35,000 as its price was extremely a little amount, the only course open to the Court was to get the best and properly available price. There is another aspect of the case. The petitioner was obviously a resourceful person. The amount due from him to the Bank could be recovered from his other source. I am convinced that the bungalow was attached and auctioned at the instance of the respondent-Bank with the connivance of Mrs. I. Khan for that matter her son Danish. The efforts of Mrs. I. Khan to save her eviction from the bungalow failed up to the Supreme Court and in order to keep it in any case, she or for that matter her son, Danish, took another turn to own the bungalow. It is surprising to note that the Supreme Court ordered Mrs. I. Khan to vacate the bungalow within four months. But she has not vacated it and she is still running hostel in it. I am told that the execution proceedings for the satisfaction of the decretal amount due from her on account of rent are still pending. It is there fore yet astonishing that on the one hand Mrs. I. Khan has not raid decretali amount on account of rent of the bungalow due from her to the petitioner and on the other hand she has purchased the bungalow. This is really al typical case, which has not been dealt with judicially. In order to finish the agonies of the petitioner in the present case, I asked him whether, he is prepared to pay the amount of interest of Rs. 5,810 due from him to the respondent-Bank, he readily agreed. In consequence, he paid the said amount p in token of receipt from the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. The receipt is placed on the record. This revision application is accordingly disposed of with direction that the execution proceedings about the decretal amount of rent due to the petitioner from Mrs. I. Khan will be expedited and she will also be directed to vacate the bungalow in question and deliver it to the petitioner. No costs. Before parting I must express thanks to Mr. Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for the Bank for his fairness and frank confession in the case. S. A. H. Order accordingly.