' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---The plaintiff/respondent No,1 filed a suit on 20-2-1994 against the petitioner and defendants/respondents 2 to 4 for declaration along with permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiff and Muneer Ahmad Butt (the predecessor-ininterest of defendant/respondent No,3) obtained Plot No,112 (now No,69) from defendant No,4 on rent, constructed a shop Municipal Committee, Sheikhupura, on it and are regularly paying the rent to defendant/respondent No,4 (Municipal Committee). The plaintiff and Muneer Ahmad Butt, jointly installed a flour mill (Chaki) at the site and also obtained an electric connection in the name of plaintiff. Subsequently they changed the business and started selling fertilizers. Muneer Ahmad, the partner of the plaintiff died and was succeeded by his son/defendant No,3. The plaintiff and Muneer Ahmad Butt (the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No,3) paid the rent as well as the electricity bill regularly, their name was present in the "Tehbazari" register of the respondent No,4.
The defendant No,1/petitioner in collusion with the staff of the defendant/ Municipal Committee got the name of the plaintiff deleted and inserted the name of defendant No,1 as ticket holder. The insertion of the name of the respondent No,1 was without any notice to the plaintiff and illegal and ineffective upon his rights. The plaintiff and defendant No,3 were still the tenants of the Municipal Committee.
' The suit was resisted by the defendant No, 1/petitioner denying all the allegations. It was stated that the plaintiff and defendant No,3 had never been in possession of the shop. Defendant No,2 filed his written statement to the similar effect. The defendant No,3 filed a conceding written statement. Municipal Committee defendant No,4 stated in written statement that the name of the plaintiff and defendant No,3 occurred in the register "Tehbazari" for the year 1966-67. The name of the plaintiff was scored out without any order from the competent authority.
' Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues wcra framed:--
(1) "Whether the plaintiff is tenant of the Committee over the suit shop? Op
(2) Whether the defendant is not concerned with the shop? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file the suit? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is without cause of action not proceedable against facts and mala fide? OPD
(6) Whether the claims of plaintiff are contradictory? OPD
(7) Whether the suit is not specified properly? OPD
(8) Relief.
' The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 22-9-1996 decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No,
1. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura who vide his judgment dated 9-5-1998 dismissed the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the statement of Muhammad Aslam Butt, plaintiff, who appeared as P.W.3 stating:- ' Learned counsel urged that this admission of the plaintiff has not been considered by the Courts below. He further submitted that the respondent was only a licensee and a suit for declaration on the basis of a licensee is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on Rehmatullah Khan and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Resources Division, Islamabad and others 2003 SCM R 50 and M.A. Naser v. Chairman Pakistan Eastern Railways and others PLD 1965 SC 83. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent referred to the documentary evidence Exhs.P.1 to P.4 (the copies of the register "Tehbazari") which show that the name of the plaintiff and Muneer Ahmad were entered in the "Tehbazari" register. Subsequently the name of the petitioner was illegally scored out and that of the defendant No,1 inserted. Learned counsel also referred to section 122 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 to contend that the Local Council can grant lease in respect of any land, open space, building or property vesting in or managed, maintained or controlled by Local Council.
3. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below, perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. Both the Courts below have concurrently decided against the petitioner that the name of the petitioner was illegally scored out without any order of the competent authority. It calls for no interference. However, in order to satisfy myself I perused the record. The extract from the "Tehbazari" register for the year 1962-63, Exh.P.1 shows the name of the plaintiff and Muneer Ahmad in the column as ticket holders in possession. Similar is the position for the year 1964-65, Exh.P.2 the extract for the year 1966-67, Exh.P.3 reveals the name of Muhammad Aslam scored out and the name of Muhammad Yousaf written therein. The scoring out of the name of the plaintiff is without any order from the competent authority. The learned Additional District Judge reached the finding as follows:-- "Exh.P.1, attested copy of the Register Tehbazari of the Corporation for the year 1962-63 shows the names of Muhammad Aslam and Munir Ahmad as tenant.
' Similarly Exh.P.2, Register Tehbazari for the year 1964-65 ' also shows the names of Muhammad Aslam and Munir Ahmad. It was in the year 1966-67, vide Exh.P.3, the name of Muhammad Aslam was scored off and the name of Muhammad Yousaf was inscribed on his name.
' The Municipal Committee, respondent No,4, in its written statement in para. No,4, admitted that the names of the plaintiff and defendant No,3 were in the Register Tehbazari of the Committee which were scored off in the year 1966-67 without any order of the concerned authority and the name of defendant No,1 was inscribed. It also shows that no transfer application was moved by the plaintiff and defendant No,3, who are tenant of the Corporation and stated to have no objection to decree the suit."
' The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to displace the same by referring to any evidence on the record to show that the petitioner was accepted as a tenant/ticket holder by the Municipal Committee. The contention of the learned counsel that the admission of the plaintiff was not considered by the Courts below is devoid of force. A part of the statement of respondent cannot be read in isolation. The statement reads as under;-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that suit for declaration was not maintainable regarding the protection of a licence, is concerned, suffice to say that the plaintiff/respondent No,1 was not a licensee in the instant case. He obtained the plot on rent and has been paying the same. No default in the payment of rent has been alleged by the Municipal Committee. This petition has no merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.