1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J-By this order I intend to examine the maintainability of the suit filed by the petitioner, as has been observed vide order of this Court, dated 4-6-2008 on the ground that the license granted to the plaintiff by the defendants had expired on 24-3-1986 and the declaration regarding bona fide licensee of the plaintiff could not be allowed by this Court.
2. ' The facts leadings rise to the filing of the present suit are that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration, permanent injunction and damages against the defendants stating therein that the plaintiff is carrying business of Firewood and Timber in Sindh Province with Railway in Wazir Mansion, Karachi and entered into an agreement of lease, dated 25-3-1985 for stacking of firewood and timber prior to dispatch by rail at Plot No,3, measuring 500 sq. Yards adjoining area at Wazir Mansion Station at the rate of Rs,60,000 per annum, which is still continuous and the firewood timber costing of Rs,3,000,000 are lying there. The plaintiff used to pay the rental amount and the defendants used to receive the same as such there exists a relationship of landlord and statutory tenant in between them. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff received a notice, dated 8-4-2008 from the defendants for the payment of outstanding dues amounting to Rs,364,000 on account of rental charges of the said railway land for stacking from July, 2003 to March, 2008 which the plaintiff paid on 29-4-2008 through pay order and despite of payment of the dues, the defendants are harassing and interfering with the business of the plaintiff and are trying to dispossess him from the suit property, which resulted in mental and physical agony to the plaintiff, thereby claiming Rs,5,000,000 as compensation/damages. The plaintiff therefore prayed for decree in the following terms:--
(a) Declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is a bona fide licensee of Plot No,3 and adjoining area at Wazir Mansion Station for the purpose of stacking of firewood and timber of the defendant.
(b) Direct the defendants not to create any harassment or take any coercive action against the plaintiff.
(c) Direct the defendants to pay damages of Rs,5,000,000 to the plaintiff on account of agony and atrocities suffered by the plaintiff at the hands of the defendants.
(d) Permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in the business affairs and possession of the suit property of the plaintiff.
(e) Any other relief or reliefs this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. (0 Cost of the suit.
4. ' The prayer clause shows that the plaintiff is claiming himself bona fide therefore, learned counsel for the plaintiff vide order of this Court, dated 4-6-2008 was required to satisfy the Court about the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the license granted to him by the defendants had expired on 24-5-1986.
5. ' I have, therefore, heard Mr. Muhammad Shahid Qadeer, advocate for the plaintiff and Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, advocate for defendants Nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently contended that the plaintiff is running the business of firewood and timber in the land leased out to him by the defendants, who are harassing and creating hurdle in the business of the plaintiff in spite of the clearance of all the dues, which compelled the plaintiff to file the present suit, as such suit is maintainable.
6. ' Learned counsel for the defendants opposes the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and pointed out that the license annexure A, does not confer any right/title or interest to the plaintiff to maintain the suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
7. ' I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the material available before me.
8. ' The plaintiff has heavily relied upon the license, annexure 'A' to the plaint and a perusal of the said license shows that it was granted to the plaintiff for the period of one year commencing from 25th March, 1985 to 24th March, 1986 and admittedly the said licence has come to an end on 25th March, 1986 and thereafter neither the licence has been renewed nor has been extended by the defendants. Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that the license was being extended verbally between the parties. The oral extension of the licence is not recognized under the law. The same position also came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.A. Naser v.
9. Chairman Pakistan Eastern Railways and others reported in PLD 1965 SC 83 wherein under the similar circumstances after consideration of the similar agreement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that prayer for declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act that the contract in question was still subsisting could not be granted as under the provision of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, a person entitled to any legal character or to any right of the property can institute a declaratory suit. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, is usefully quoted hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:--- "In the suit there was also a prayer for declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act that the contract in question was still subsisting. The learned counsel has not pressed this point before us. Under the provisions of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act a person entitled "to any legal character" or to "any right to property" can institute for a declaratory relief in respect of his title to such legal character or right to property. It will therefore, suffice to say that section 42 does not contemplate a suit like the present one."
10. ' The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.A. Naser, supra, therefore, without any iota of doubt shows that suit under section 42 of Specific Relief Act could not be maintained which speaks about legal character of a person in the property which is not the case in hand. In the present case also the plaintiff is seeking a B declaration with regard to continuance of the lease agreement which has already come to an end two decades earlier, as such the ratio of the case of M.A. Naser, supra, is fully applicable under the circumstances of the present case.
11. ' In the case of Messrs Noorani Traders Karachi v. Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority, reported in PLD 2002 Karachi 83, the same point came for consideration before this Court and the learned Division Bench of this Court after examining the case-law was pleased to observe that the suit under sections 60 and 64 of Easements Act could not be maintained under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act for the purposes of declaration that the license agreement was subsisting the dictum laid down by the this Court in the case of Noorani Traders is also fully attracted to the circumstances of the present case.
12. ' In the present case, as discussed above, the plaintiff is claiming a declaration regarding his bona fide licensee of plot allotted to him by the defendants but the fact remains that the said licence has already come to an end which has neither been renewed nor has been extended as such the relief claimed by the plaintiff is hit under the provisions of sections 60 and 64 of the Easements Act as well as under section 42 of Specific Relief Act and finally the relief claimed by the plaintiff could not be awarded in view of the case-law discussed above.
13. ' The plaint therefore suffers from inherent legal defects discussed above, and is hereby rejected under order VII rule 11, C.P.C. With cost along with listed applications.