' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Through this civil revision the applicant/decree-holder has called in question order, dated 8-8-2005, of the executing Court, whereby it directed the decree-holder to comply with the formalities in terms of judgment-debtors' letter No,PD/4/2001, dated 10-1-2001, whereby the decree-holder was to deposit a sum of Rs,25,00,000 against showroom No,6 as against the decree-holder's willingness to pay Rs,340,344.
2. Briefly the facts are that the decree-holder on 15-12-1956 along with more than 200 persons was directed by the Rehabilitation A Commissioner to hand-over the space in his possession, as it was required for construction of a multistoried building on the site with an undertaking to give him a shop in the new building on the terms and conditions to be determined by the Rehabilitation Commissioner. It appears that except applicant all others were provided shops in the newly constructed building in the year, 1965-66 on payment of Rs,6000 or so. However, the applicant could not be provided a shop as was undertaken giving rise to filing of Suit No,456 of 1966, which initially was dismissed, but in appeal the judgment-debtors undertook to provide the applicant with Shop No,217. Subsequently, the occupant of Shop No,217 filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. And the decision of the appellate Court was set aside giving rise to filing of Civil Revision No,35 of 1998 before this Court and consequently this Court decreed the suit on the basis of following undertaking given on behalf of the judgment-debtors:- "(11) That the contents of para.14 as narrated are denied. I, however, once again offer the applicant to allot Showroom No,6 as is where is basis on completing the required formalities and payment of dues provided he withdraw the above case and accept the allotment in full and final settlement and not to make any other claim/demand. I am making this offer to bring an end to the litigation."
3 . In order to enforce such undertaking the applicant filed an execution application, from which this revision has arisen as the judgment-debtors claimed the price of showroom as Rs,25,00,000, whereas the decree-holder requested for the payment of the amount as was taken from the original allottees, to whom the shops were granted against evacuation card.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that due to respondents' mala fide actions and wrong denial of what was due to the applicant he was compelled to litigate for 43 years and now the judgment-debtors are demanding the price which was charged from fresh allottees in the year, 2001. Per learned counsel, the applicant is entitled for the said showroom against the payment which was charged from the card holders in the year 1966 and that admittedly ranges from Rs,6000 to Rs,7000 despite the applicant has shown his willingness to pay an amount on which various showrooms were leased out in the year 1998-99.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the judgment-debtors admitted the entitlement of the decree- holder against temporary evacuation card to a shop. However, learned counsel states that since no shop is available, therefore, the judgment-debtors have offered the decree-holder a showroom on a price which was fixed in the year, 2001 by the Cabinet looking after the affairs of Saddar Cooperative Market Ltd,. Karachi. It was next contended by the learned counsel that though the shops were leased out to the card holders against a consideration ranging between the Rs,6000 to Rs,7000, but the showroom is three times bigger than the shop, therefore, the demand of the judgment-debtors is in order and in, consonance with the directions of the Cabinet. In the end, it was contended that the judgment-debtors will provide the Showroom No,6 to the decree-holder on the price as directed by this Court, but the possession could not be delivered as the same has been rented out.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the record.
7. There appears to be no dispute as to the entitlement of the applicant to a shop against evacuation card and there is no explanation whatsoever with the respondents/judgment-debtors as to why the applicant was not provided such shop in the year 1965-66 along with other evacuation card holders. Since non-delivery of shop to the applicant against his entitlement was totally without any justification, therefore, the respondents are not in a position to justify charging of new price from the applicant/decree-holder and consequently counsel for the respondents as well as the Secretary of the respondent No,5 after placing facts before this Court conceded to execute sub-lease in favour of the applicant on a price directed by this Court.
8. After considering the submissions of the respective parties and record, I am of the view that the case in hand is a classic example of maladministration on the part of respondents, whereby a just right was denied to the applicant for 43 years and even now the respondents have come with a position that the showroom which was reserved for the applicant has been rented out meaning thereby another round of litigation. It is height of highhandedness that after depriving the applicant from earning his livelihood for 43 years and forcing him to spend his time, energy and efforts for a right which was denied without any justification, demand has been placed to pay the current price of the shop and allowing such demand would mean to allow the respondents the benefit of their own wrong. Even otherwise, the applicant has placed on record lease deeds in respect of Showroom Nos.2-A, 3 and Shop Nos.9 and 62 executed in the year 1998 in favour of various persons on charging amount varying from Rs,3300 to 15000. In my opinion, the applicant is not only entitled to the shop/showroom at a price which it D would have fetched in the year 1966 but also to compensation for being deprived from earning his livelihood for 43 years. In the circumstances, the applicant is found entitled to shop/showroom on the price charged from the evacuation card- holders in the year, 1965-66 and even if the showroom offered to the applicant instead of shop is three times bigger than the shop as pleaded by the respondents, then they are entitled to increase at the most by three times, which comes to Rs,18000, but this increase would have been subject to rendering the account of rent charged by the respondents for the last 43 years.
9. However, since the applicant himself has offered to pay a sum of Rs,340,344, perhaps under desperation or to match the amount charged or initially charged by the respondents in the year 2000-2001 against the lease of such showroom, therefore, I allow this revision and direct the respondents to execute the sublease deed in favour of the applicant within 30 days hereof on receipt of Rs,340,344.