' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.-- The instant C.R. No,2290 of 2006 as also the connected Civil Revisions bearing Nos.2468 of 2006, 2469 of 2006, 2470 of 2006, 2471 of 2006 and 2472 of 2006 are being decided together, as all involve the common question of law and facts.
2. The petitioners in all the cases claim that they have participated in the open auction for acquiring on lease/rent the shops in question and being the highest bidders, they were successful.
The Tehsil Municipal Administration, in its meeting of the house verified and confirmed the auction on 6-6-2005; the petitioners had also accordingly deposited the rental and the advance etc. The petitioners feeling aggrieved, that the respondents intended to take the possession from the petitioners forcibly, brought the suits, along with which they filed the applications for the grant of temporary injunction, which have been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 8-6- 2006; the appeals of the petitioners also failed on 20-10-2006.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had obtained the shops on rent through a proper and transparent process and procedure, which was verified by the house on 6-6-2005, but they are being illegally dispossessed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that previously the rent of these very shops, which was earlier with the petitioners, was much more than Rs,425 the rate at which these are now claimed to have been auctioned to them. The meeting of the house, to which reference has been made, in clear terms decided that the shops should be given on rent, which is more than the previous, but it is other way around. I have also been apprised that arrears of the rent about the previous tenancy are also outstanding against the petitioners.
' In the light of above, I do not find that the petitioners are entitled to any discretionary relief. All the petitions are accordingly dismissed.