P L D 1963 (W (PLP)

A. S. FARLJQUI, J.‑This petition under Article 98 of the Consti tution arises under the following circumstances. . The respondent No. 3 Shamsuddin son of Maulvi Noor Muhammad applied to the Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, while be was camping at Larkana, saying that a shop premises which had been rented out by his father to the present petitioner Dr. Khalilur Rahman Dentist was needed by him (respondent No. 3) for his own personal use but the dentist was not vacating it. He, therefore, prayed for justice to be done. The Minister forwarded this application with the endorsement:‑ "Deputy Commissioner, Larkana for consideration please." When this reached the Deputy Commissioner, he issued notice to Dr. Khalilur Rahman through the S.H.O., Larkana town to appear before him on 28‑4‑

62. When he appeared in obedience to this notice before the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent No. 3 Shamsuddin was also there and he asserted that Dr. Khalilur Rahman was in possession of another shop as well and as such the possession of the shop in question bearing No. 1509 which was also in his occupation should be made over to him because he needed it. This was denied by the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner directed the Mukhtiarkar, Larkana to make inquiry on the question whether the petitioner had any other shop in his possession. The Mukhtiarkar appears to have made a report against the present petitioner, the correctness of which however was challenged by the petitioner. On 29th August 1962 a letter was sent to the S.H.O., Larkana by the Camp clerk of the Deputy Commissioner asking him to direct Dr. Khalilur Rahman to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 8th September 1962. There it is stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 was also present and the clerk of the Deputy Commissioner com municated to the petitioner the order of the Deputy Commissioner which was to the effect that he should give the possession of the shop to Shamsuddin. No written order was shown to the peti tioner though he demanded it After we issued notice the file of this case was brought by the clerk of the Deputy Commissioner and it was shown to us by the learned A. A.‑G. We found that there was no such order on this file. There was, however, a letter dated 10th September 1962 signed by the Deputy Commissioner and addressed to the Mukhtiarkar, Larkana which reads as follows "Since Dr. Khalilur Rahman has his own shop in Larkana town and Maulvi Shamsuddin wants to run shop himself as he has no other source of income, please get the shop vacated from Dr. Khalilur Rahman and hand over possession to Maulvi Shamsuddin and report compliance." The Mukhtiarkar accordingly served a notice on the petitioner on 12th September 1962 informing him that he had been ordered by the Deputy Commissioner to make over the possession of the shop in question to Shamsuddin. The petitioner asked for a copy of the order and was informed by the Mukhtiarkar in writing that the said order was not a public document and was part of Government correspondence and as such true copy of it could not be granted. Evidently he was referring to the communication dated 10th September 1962 which has been repordu;‑.ed above. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court and it was ordered on 20th September 1962 that a copy of this petition be sent to the Deputy Commissioner for his remarks and to the meantime the petitioner should not be ejected from the shop in question. However, before this order could be served upon the Deputy Commissioner it seems that possession was already taken over by the Mukhtiarkar and handed over to Shamsuddin on 18‑9‑62.

2. The way in which all these proceedings have been conducted is, to say the least, regretable. It should have been evident to the learned Deputy Commissioner that he had no power under the law to evict a tenant from his shop and restore its possession to the landlord. That power is given to the Rent Controller under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. 1n fact, it does not appear from anywhere in the proceedings that the learned Deputy Commissioner was purporting to act under any provision of law. As we have pointed out there was not even an order on record. All that there was on record was only the communication dated 10‑9‑62 sent to the Mukhtiarkar directing him to take possession of the shop and hand it over to the respondent No. 3 on compassionate grounds. There was not even a mention anywhere about any amicable settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.

3. This is clearly an after thought. We would like to stress that the least that can be expected of the head of a District administration is that he will act within the power given to him under the law. To give the shop to Shamsuddin might have appeared to the Deputy Commis sioner to be a very merciful act, but it could only have been done through the procedure provided by law. Article 2 of the Constitu tion lays down that it is the inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and in particular no action, detrimental to . . . . property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law. The tenancy right is undoubtedly an interest in property and any action detrimental to it can only be taken in accordance with law. The law applicable in this case was the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and the jurisdiction to administer it is given to a Civil Judge as a Rent Controller. We cannot but deprecate the action of the Deputy Commissioner in usurping that jurisdiction and attempting to deal with that civil dispute on the administration side. We must also record our disapproval of the technique adopted by the Deputy Commissioner in ordering the police to enquire into the antece dents of the tenant. This was obviously intended to frighten him in respect of his claim to hold on to his tenancy right. Short‑cuts may sometimes be found to be convenient but if encouraged they may lead to lawlessness and impede orderly progress. An officer acting in deliberate disregard of law in such matters exposes himself personally to the risk of an action for damages.

3. The learned A. A.‑G., who appeared before us, did not wisely press the clumsy plea of amicable settlement and frankly conceded that there was no legal sanction. for the action taken by the Deputy Commissioner or the Mukhtiarkar. We accordingly quash the whole proceedings .including the direction under which the petitioner was evicted from his shop and possession of which was handed over to respondent No.

3. The learned A. A.‑G. has assured us that the Deputy Commissioner will put the petitioner back into the shop from where he had evicted him. The petitioner will have his costs of this petition. x. B. A./A. H. Petition accepted.