1. Granted.
2. Exemption is granted, but subject to all just exceptions.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Appraising Officer in Pakistan Customs and is presently posted at Muhammad Bin Qasim Sea Port, Karachi. The petitioner applied for government residence in Civil Aviation Authority ('CAA') Colony at JIAP.
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter allotted him Barrack No,131/1, CAA Colony, JIAP, Karachi, on 3-4- 2010 with certain conditions. Thereafter, the respondents received a complaint that the petitioner has sublet the said barrack to some unauthorized persons. Thereafter, on 15-3-2013 respondent No,2 issued him a notice No,JIAP/1357-23/131-1/KCPSA/1 mentioning therein that since he has sublet his barrack to some unauthorized persons his allotment has been cancelled with immediate effect and he was instructed to hand over the keys of the said barrack together with upto date paid bills failing which action will be taken as per CAA Rules. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Suit No,97/2013 before the 1st Senior Civil Judge, Malir-Karachi, for declaration and permanent injunction against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
' The matter proceeded before the trial Court, who vide order dated 23-4-2013 disposed of two applications, one under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. By the petitioner/plaintiff, and the other under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. By the respondents/defendants. The learned trial Court through the above referred order allowed the application filed by the petitioner and dismissed the application of the present respondents. Being aggrieved with the said order, Civil Revision Application No,14 of 2013 was filed before the Court 1st Additional District Judge, Malir-Karachi, who vide order dated 12- 3-2014 decided the matter against the present petitioner, whereby the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Allowed by the trial Court was set aside, and the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Rejected by the trial Court was allowed. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
' Muhammad Rafiq, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order passed by respondent No,2 on 15-3-2013 was illegal as the said order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He has further challenged the eviction notice dated 15-3- 2013 by stating that no subletting has been made by the petitioner, hence both these eviction notice and order are liable to be set aside and the petitioner may be allowed to keep on residing in the allotted barrack.
' We have heard the learned counsel at considerable length and have perused the record. It is seen that in the allotment order dated 3-4-2010, the said barrack was allotted to the petitioner inter alia on the following conditions : "(i) House is allotted on the temporary basis. ,
(ii) He will have to vacate the house as and when required by CAA."
' We have specifically asked a question from the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether the petitioner is living in the said premises on a temporary basis, to which he replied in the affirmative.
We again asked him another question that whether the petitioner is not required to vacate the said barrack as and when required by CAA, again his answer was in the affirmative. He, however, stated that since the petitioner is not having any other accommodation/place, he would be seriously prejudiced if he has to vacate the said barrack. He further submitted that the said barrack has not been let out by the petitioner to any other unauthorized person.
' Admittedly, the barrack was allotted to the petitioner on temporary basis, and he was under an obligation to vacate the same as and when required by CAA. The matter pertains exclusively to a matter between the petitioner and CAA, and as such the petitioner does not have any legal character or right in the barrack. The Suit of the petitioner was, therefore, barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and due to this reason, the consequential relief of injunction sought by the petitioner was also barred under section 56 of the said Act. We concur with the findings of the learned Revisional Court in this context, which are based on correct interpretation of law and correct appreciation of the material available on record. The impugned order do not, suffer from any illegality or infirmity, and as such the same does not require any interference by this Court. In view of the above, this petition is not maintainable, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
4. Since the petition has been dismissed, this application has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.