MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.--- This revision application is directed against the judgment, dated 12-3-2002 passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi-East in Civil Appeal No,156 of 2000.
2. The revision application is pending at the Katcha Peshi stage from the year 2002, after issuance of pre-admission notice. Both the Advocates are present, therefore, I have heard the entire revision application, which is finally disposed of by this judgment.
3. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff/applicant filed a suit for declaration and injunction stating therein that Saudabad Trust was created on 4-6-1954 by the then Governor-General of Pakistan, with initial fund of Rs,15,00,000 which was donated by the King Saud and others members of his delegations while visiting Pakistan. The said fund was provided for rehabilitation of refugees coming to Pakistan after communal disturbances in the undivided India. In order to achieve the objects of Trust small residential quarters were constructed and the area was named as Saudabad Colony. The plaintiff/applicant alleged that he was having no permanent residential accommodation. Subsequently, under the basic democracy order Saudabad Union Committee was formed. Although the quarters were constructed for residential purposes but due to scarcity of the office building Quarter No,S-2/1 was placed at the disposal of Landhi Korangi Municipal Committee and office of Saudabad Union Committee was temporarily housed in residential quarter. The plaintiff was Secretary of the said Union Committee at the relevant time. The said Union Committee was subsequently abolished and was amalgamated with the Landhi Korangi Municipal Committee located at Korangi. After abolition of Saudabad Union Committee, the office of the Saudabad Union Committee, which was basically a residential quarter was vacant and the plaintiff submitted an application to the Administrator, Landhi Korangi Municipal Committee for allotment of the said quarter for residential purposes. According to plaintiff/ applicant the Administrator, Landhi Korangi Municipal Committee issued the allotment order on 20th February, 1973 and the rent was deducted from the salary.
4. It was further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was made to understand and had reasons to believe that the said quarter placed at the disposal of Administrator, Landhi Korangi Municipal Committee is owned by L.K.M.C., who rightly allotted the same to the plaintiff and the defendant Saudabad Trust or its Administrator, Deputy Commissioner, Karachi-East had nothing to do with the same. It was averred that the defendant cannot ask the plaintiff to vacate the said quarter as the plaintiff has acquired substantial tenancy rights under the letter issued by the Administrator L.K.M.C. It was also contended that the defendant is a Public Charitable Trust created under a deed with aim and object to rehabilitate the refugees but Mr. Muhammad Zakir the then Welfare Officer started minting money by adopting of policy of pick and choose. It was further stated in the plaint that in the Board of Trustees of the defendant, there are official members as well as public members. Deputy Commissioner was ex officio Chairman while the Additional Deputy Commissioner was its Administrator. According to plaintiff, at the time of filing the suit, Commissioner, Karachi was Chairman while Deputy Commissioner, Karachi-East was its Administrator. It is averred that Welfare Officer Muhammad Zakir had personal grudge with the plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to pay the illegal demand for regularisation of the plaintiff's possession in respect of the suit quarter and, therefore, he was threatened to be ejected. The plaintiff's family, however, resisted and ejectment was averted. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner stayed the ejectment proceedings. It was also stated in the plaint that the suit quarter being the property of L.K.M.C. And the plaintiff being their tenant, the defendant has no locus standi to eject/dispossess the plaintiff. It was also averred that even the L.K.M.C. Was not entitled to eject the plaintiff by force, as the plaintiff is enjoying protection under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The plaintiff filed Suit bearing No,2402 of 1973 to safeguard his interest and avoid dispossession, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appeal filed against the dismissal of suit was also dismissed. After dismissal of appeal, the plaintiff/applicant filed another Suit bearing No,884 of 1987 stating therein that the cause of action arose on 17-12-1973 and on 6th of July, 1987 when the Welfare Officer of the defendant Trust attempted to dispossess the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff sought relief as follows:- "In view of the above submissions it is respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree as under:-
(a) Decree and judgment for declaration that the defendant or/and any of its officer inclusive of Trustees, Chairman, Administrator are not legally competent to order and/or to forcibly dispossess/ eject the plaintiff from Quarter No,S-2/1, Saudabad, Colony, Karachi.
(b) For declaration in the alternative the plaintiff is entitled to get the aforesaid quarter regularised in his name as has been done by the defendant in several like-wise cases on payment of usual charges to the defendant.
(c) Grant injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, servants, employee, Chairman, Administrator, Mukhtar, Attorney, Workman, Assignee, or employee, or anybody else working for them on their behalf and under their direction/ orders from forcibly ejecting the plaintiff from Quarter No-.S2/1, Saudabad Colony, Karachi.
(d) Cost of the suit.
(e) Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
6. The respondent/defendant filed written statement assailing the maintainability of the suit and the entitlement of the plaintiff.
7 0n the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- "(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable?
(2) Whether the plaintiff was allotted a Quarter No,S-2/1, by Saudabad Trust?
(3) Whether the suit is time-barred?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed in the suit?
(5) What should the decree be?"
8. The plaintiff examined himself and produced documents in support his contention. The defendant/respondent did not pursue the matter and the plaintiff was not cross-examined. No evidence was laid by the defendant.
9. The learned trial Court decided the above issues as follows:-- "Issue No,1 Negative.
Issue No,2. As discussed.
Issue No,3. Negative Issue No,4. Affirmative Issue No,5. Suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed with no order as to costs.
10. The defendant then filed appeal, which was heard by the learned IInd Additional District Judge
(East) Karachi, who set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court by judgment, dated 12-3-2002 which has been impugned in this revision application.
11. The learned trial Court framed the following points for determination.
"(1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable in law?
(2) Whether the plaintiff/respondent was allotted question legally and lawfully? Property in
(3) Whether the Lower Court has committed any illegality or irregularities in the impugned judgment?
(4) What should the order be?
12. The findings on the above points were given as follows:-- "Point No,1 In affirmative.
Point No,2 In negative.
Point No,3 In affirmative.
Point No,4 Appeal allowed with no order as to costs."
13. The learned Appellate Court held that the allotment order could be issued under the Trust Deed and its Bye Laws by the Board of Trustee or by Administrator with the approval of Board of Trustee only and nobody else was competent to issue any allotment order. The learned Appellate Court further held that the allotment order was issued in favour of the plaintiff/applicant by Welfare Officer, Saudabad Trust, who was not competent in law to issue any allotment order and consequently the plaintiff/applicant was not in possession of any valid allotment order with the result that no right was conferred on him. The learned Appellate Court consequently dismissed the suit.
14. Mr. S. Zahir Hussain Chishti, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned trial Court has misread the evidence. In support of his contention, he has submitted that the allotment order in favour of applicant was issued by Administrator, Municipal Committee Landhi Korangi and not by the Welfare Officer, as held by the learned Appellate Court. He has drawn my attention to the letter dated 24-2-1973.
15. A perusal of the said letter shows that to the extent of issuance of this letter the learned Appellate Court has committed mistake by observing, that the letter was issued by Welfare Officer.
However, I have examined the letter of request by the plaintiff addressed to the Chief Officer, Peoples Municipality Landhi Korangi dated 31st October, 1972. This letter contains that the plaintiff was living in a rented house and had no residential accommodation. Saudabad Union Committee was having its office in Quarter No,S-2/1, which was trust property. The plaintiff learnt that Union Committee has been wound-up and the quarter will remain vacant. Paras. 4 and 5 of the letter read as follows:-- "(4) That in the circumstances I may be permitted to reside in the said quarter so that my residential problem could be solved. Since the present accommodation is too small we are experiencing great many difficulties.
(5) That there are precedents that when Town Committee Offices of Malir Town Extension were wound-up Secretaries of the respective Town Committee were allowed to reside therein. In view of the foregoing lines it is requested that your honour may kindly give permission as requested above."
16. The Administrator, Municipal Committee, Landhi Korangi granted permission to the plaintiff/applicant to occupy the said quarter vide letter dated 24-2-1973, which is reproduced below:-- "To ' Messrs Kabir Ahmed Khan, Secretary Union Committee Saudabad, Municipal Committee Landhi Korangi, Karachi.
Sub. Abolition of Union Committee Office S-2/1 Saudabad Ref. Your application dated 31st December, 1972 ' In view of the fact that the Committee stands abolished the existing building of Union Committee may be utilized by you as your residence as requested by you in your above application provided you pay Rs,30 p.m. As rent to Landhi Korangi Municipal Committee. The building will remain L.K.M.C.'s property and you will not make any addition or alteration in the building whatsoever.
' You will neither cause any damage to the building nor sublet it to others and that you will also not use the building for any trade business and storage of any kind, other than for your own bona fide residential purpose.
' The quarter is and will remain the property of the Municipal Committee and shall be liable to be vacated by you on your transfer, promotion, dismissal retirement or at any time the L.K.M.C., require you to vacate the quarter without issue of any notice. The Municipal Committee reserves the right to eject you any time without any notice since the building is an office premises, and you are being allowed to use it for your own residential use purely on temporary basis and on your own request.
The L.K.M.C., will not pay any water, light charges etc. For the period the building remain in your residential use.
' Please acknowledge receipt in token of receipt of this letter and acceptance after above conditions.
(Sd.) Fayyaz Ahmed Lcs-I Administrator, Municipal Committee Landhi Korangi."
17. I have asked Mr. S. Zahir Hussain Chishti, learned counsel for the applicant, whether the above letter amounts to allotment of the suit quarter to which he replied that he will call the said letter as allotment order. He further stated that even if it is a licence the plaintiff/applicant had the right to retain the same. Mr. Chishti has further stated that the Trust Deed was with the defendant who did not produce the same before the trial Court and, therefore, the plaintiff does not know if the quarter could be allotted by the Board of Trustee or by the Deputy Commissioner in the capacity of Administrator of the Trust only and none else was empowered to allot the same.
18. He has emphasised that since the defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff and did not produce any evidence before the trial Court, therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit and the learned Appellate Court committed error in setting aside the same.
19. On the other hand, Mr. Fariduddin, learned counsel for the respondent has produced the Trust Deed as well as Bye-Laws, a perusal whereof shows that the Administrator had powers to make allotment of land and quarters subject to the approval of the Trust. It is further provided that he shall execute the leases of quarters/plots on behalf of the Trust. The Administrator was also empowered to sign all the documents on behalf of the Board. Mr. Fariduddin has submitted that the Administrator of Municipal Committee, Landhi Korangi had no authority over the properties held by the Trust and he could not issue even a licence.
20. I have carefully considered the entire material on record and the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties. At the very outset I would like to observe that every ex parte suit is not to be decreed as a matter of course because the burden shall still be on the plaintiff to establish that he is entitled to the relief sought by him. Every party has to stand on his own strength and legs and not on the weakness of the other side. Since in this case the plaintiff approached the Court for declaration and injunction alleging himself as allottee of said quarter the onus was on the plaintiff to establish that he had certain right in law which should be protected by the Court. If a person has no right in law he cannot approach the Court seeking protection. I am not impressed with the submission of Mr. Chishti that the Trust Deed was with the defendant/respondent, therefore, the plaintiff was not aware as to who was empowered to allot the properties held by the Trust.
21. In para.1 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated that the defendant Saudabad Trust was created on 4- 6-1954 by the then Governor-General of Pakistan. He has further stated in the plaint that initially Deputy Commissioner was ex-officio Chairman, while the Additional Deputy Commissioner was Administrator and subsequently Commissioner, Karachi was acting as Chairman of the Trust, while Deputy Commissioner (East) Karachi was the Administrator. Nobody can take plea that he was not aware as to who was competent in law to confer any right in a property. The Administrator, Municipal Committee Landhi Korangi had no right in law to issue any allotment order or even licence in respect of the property admittedly owned by Saudabad Trust. I further find that the applicant never applied for any allotment of the suit quarter but merely sought permission to occupy the same and the permission was granted by the Administrator, Municipal Committee Landhi Korangi. The letter of permission clearly states that the plaintiff/applicant shall be liable to vacate the suit quarter on his transfer, promotion, dismissal, retirement or at any time the L.K.M.C.
Require him to do so without issuance of any notice. The letter, dated 24-2-1973 further contains that the plaintiff was allowed to use it for residential purposes purely on temporary basis and on his own request. Although the Administrator, Municipal Committee Landhi Korangi had no authority in law to issue even a licence but even this unauthorised licence does not confer any right on the applicant to claim it, as his property or to assert any right, title or interest in the property. It is trite law that any licence does not confer any right or title in the property.
22. It appears that the learned trial Court decreed the suit being impressed with the fact that the defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff and did not examine any witness. This approach on the part of trial Court was not correct, as the learned trial Court was required to examine the documents on the basis whereof the plaintiff/applicant approached the trial Court seeking declaration and injunction.
23. The learned Appellate Court has rightly examined the documents on record. I would like to observe that even if the defendant has not filed written statement, and has not cross-examined the witnesses produced by the plaintiff, and has not produced any defence witnesses and the suit proceeded ex parte, he has the right to contest the suit and take plea that on the basis of evidence produced by the plaintiff himself the suit is liable to be dismissed. Every ex parte suit is not to be decreed as a matter of course. An ex parte proceedings merely excludes defendant from producing evidence but it does not confer a right on the plaintiff ipso facto even in the cases where the plaintiff has failed to establish right alleged in the suit.
24. The impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Court is not open to any exception. There is no illegality or material irregularity causing miscarriage of justice and consequently, the revision application is without substance, which stands dismissed along with listed application.