P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

LARI, J.--‑These three writ petitions raise common ques tions of fact and law and may be disposed of by one and the same order. The petitioners' case in all the three writ petitions is that they have been carrying on business of book‑sellers irn wooden cabins at Mission Road, installed on Municipal land with permission of Municipal Corporation Respondent No. 1 on payment of monthly rents, the petitioners were paying rent regularly but the Land Manager, Municipal Corporation purporting to act as an agent of the Municipal Corporation terminated their leases without an opportunity to show cause and has directed them to vacate the sites within 24 hours from the date of the receipt of the notices. The petitioners further alleged that they apprehended that they might be ejected by use of force. The respondents denied that the petitioners were lessees and alleged that they were mere licencees whose licences had been legally revoked by the Municipal Corporation and that they were entitled to eject the petitioners without filing any suit for ejectment. The first question that requires consideration is whether the petitioners are lessees or mere licencees. The petitioners alleged that they had been paying rent but on examination we found that the rent receipts were in respect of licence fees. Notices issued to them were in the following terms: "The cabin license issued to you has already expired and you have failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the grant and rendered yourself, thereby, liable to the termination of your license. Your License, therefore, hereby stands determined and you may please vacate the site in question within 24 hours of the receipt of the notice. You, are however offered an alternate accommodation to one on the Mohan Road Nalla shops on compassionate grounds . . . . . . . (Sd.) Land Manager." In determining whether a grant is lease or licence the chief consideration to be borne in mind is whether any right of exclusive possession is given to the grantee or not. In the case of cabin holder no interest in the land much less exclusive possession is delivered to the cabin holder. All that the cabin holder is allowed is to put up a cabin for a specified period on certain conditions. Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter IV Schedule 6, of the Karachi Municipal Corporation Act make the position clear. Rule 1 runs thus: "No person shall, except with the permission of the Chief Officer, and in accordance with such conditions, including the payment of rent, as he may impose either generally or specially in that behalf, place or deposit upon any street or drain, well, or channel therein, any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale, tray or other thing and the Chief Officer may without giving notice remove any such stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale. tray or other thing . . . . . . ." The relevant portion of Rule 2 may also be quoted. It is in the following words: 2 (1) "No person shall, except with the permission of the Chief Officer and in accordance with such terms and condi tions including the payment of rent or otherwise as the Chief Officer may impose either generally by regulation or in each special case‑ (a) Open, break up, displace, take up or make any alteration in, or cause any injury to, the soil or pavement or any wall, fence, post, chain or other material or thing forming part of any street ; or (b) deposit any building material in any street ; or (c) set up in any street any scaffold of any temporary erection for the purpose of any work whatever, or any posts, bars, rails boards or other things by way of enclosure, for the purpose of making mortar or depositing bricks, lime, rubbish or other materials." A licence has been defined as a mere voluntary suspension of the licencor's right to treat certain acts as wrongful. No person can put any cabin on the street except with the permis sion of the Municipal Corporation and the keeping of cabin B is lawful so long as permission continues. The moment the permission is withdrawn the act of keeping cabin becomes unlawful. The same thing happened in these cases. The petitioners were allowed to put cabins for certain periods and on certain conditions. Rule 2 (2) lays down that any permission granted under sub‑rule (1), clause (b) or (c), shall be terminable at the discretion of the Chief Officer, on his giving not less than twenty‑four hours' written notice of the termination thereof to the person to whom such permission was granted. The Municipal Corporation was therefore fully entitled to cannel the licences. The next question for determination is whether the Chief Officer or any person authorised by him could remove the cabin without having recourse to a Court of law. Rule 3 of Chapter IV Schedule 6 is in the following words: "The Chief Officer may, without notice, cause to be removed any building materials, or any scaffold or any temporary erection, or any posts, bars, rails, boards or other things by way of enclosure ; which have been deposited or set up in any street without the permission or authority specified in sub‑rule (1), or which, having been deposited or set up with such permission or authority, have not been removed within the period specified in the notice issued under sub‑rule (2)." Under the above rule the Chief Officer has got full authority to remove or cause to be removed any temporary erection such as cabin. There is no necessity for the Municipal Corporation to seek the help of any Court of Law. The Chief Officer himself can take action to remove obstruc tions in the streets. A temporary construction like cabin on a street is necessarily an obstruction in the street. It was argued that the cabins were on paths and could nut constitute an obstruction in street. Street has been defined in section 5 (46) of the Karachi Municipal Corporation Act which is as follows: " "Street" means any road, footway, square, court" alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not which is accessible to the public whether permanently or temporarily and includes every vacant space, notwithstanding that it may be private property and obstructed wholly or partly by any gate, post, chain or other barrier, if buildings about, thereon and if it is used by any persons, whether occupiers of such buildings or not as a means of access to or from any public place or thoroughfare, but does not include any part of such vacant space which the occupier of any such building has a right at any time to prevent all other persons` from using as aforesaid". There can be no doubt that the Chief Officer has power to remove the cabins in question. The petitioners expressed an apprehension that force might be used for the purposes of removing the cabins. When au authority is given it necessarily implies powers to carry that into effect provided of course that no Statute is violated and no offence is committed. So long as the Chief Officer or his agent does not commit any act punishable under any law for the time being in force he can use such powers as may be absolutely necessary for achieving the object. There is no force in these petitions and they are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.