1. ' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J. -By an order dated 3rd October 1959, the Collector of Karachi after serving several show-cause notices, forfeited the plot bearing No, 43/LR 8, Lawrence Road, Karachi, which had been leased out to one Mr. Fakhruddin Ebrahim Pattanwala by the Government Sind, on the ground that the lease had violated the terms of the lease. Subsequently, by another order, dated 27th July, 1970 the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi, demanded payment of rent from the petitioner for unauthorised occupation of the aforesaid plot at the rate of Rs, 1,500 per month with effect from 3rd October. 1959 and further called upon them to hand over vacant possession of the forfeited plot. Both the aforesaid orders were challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Commissioner of Karachi. The appeal was heard by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Karachi who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 14th October, 1971 and maintained both he aforesaid orders on the grounds that the lease having been cancelled and no appeal having been filed against the cancellation by the lessee Fakhruddin Ebrahim Pattanwala and there being no privity of contract either between the Government and the petitioner or between the lessee Fakhruddin Ebrahim Pattanwala and the petitioner, the petitioner was a trespasser and had no locus standi to challenge the forfeiture of the plot and since they had been occupying the plot unauthorisedly without having any right, title or interest therein, they were liable to pay the rent demanded from them. He further held that the notice demanding rent by itself did not create any lease of ownership in the petitioners. Hence this petition.
2. ' After the matter was argued at some length and it was pointed out to the learned counsel whether petitioner had any locus standi to challenge the forfeiture of the plot either before the revenue authorities below or before this Court in view of the admitted position on record that there was no privacy of contract between the petitioner and the Government or between the petitioner and the said lessee Fakhruddin Ebrahim Pattanwala, the learned counsel very candidly conceded that in view of the record showing absence, of such privity, he could not challenge the forfeiture of the plot and did not press the petition against the forfeiture order dated 3rd October, 1959 passed by the Collector of Karachi, confirmed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Karachi, and pressed the petition only against the order dated 27th July, 1970 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi. The learned counsel contended that inasmuch as the said order, demanding rent from the petitioner at the given rate for the stated period and vacation of the plot, was passed without hearing the petitioner in violation of rule of natural justice and since the Additional Commissioner in appeal also gave no adequate basis for affirming the demand of rent at such rate and for such period, the said order be quashed and a direction be given to the Deputy Commissioner to pass fresh order regarding it, after hearing the petitioner, to which Mr. M. Ibrahim Memon, learned Additional Advocate-General very fairly, and rightly, agreed.
3. ' In so far as the order of forfeiture of the plot in question is concerned, petitioner, indeed, could have no locus standi to challenge it, in view of the admitted position that there existed no privity of contract, in any form or manner, between the Government and the petitioner or between the ex- lessee Fakhruddin Ebrahim Pattanwala and the petitioner. The learned counsel therefore adopted the right course in not pressing the petition against the order of forfeiture of the plot, dated 3rd October, 1959, which was rightly confirmed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Karachi.
4. With regard to the order dated 27th July, 1970 however, we find that it was initially passed by the Deputy Commissioner without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the order of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) would show that he also directed himself mainly against the order of forfeiture of the plot and did not seriously consider the grievance of the petitioner against the said order regarding the rate of rent, the period of demand and vacation of the plot, we, therefore, agree with both the learned counsel that fresh order needs to be passed in respect thereof.
5. ' Accordingly, while maintaining the order of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) regarding forfeiture of the plot in question, we set aside his order to the extent of affirming the order dated 27th July, 1970 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi, and direct the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi, South, to pass fresh order according to law after hearing the petitioner with regard to the monthly rate of rent, the period for which the petitioner is liable to pay rent and to their vacating the plot in question. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.