1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.-The petitioner has challenged in this petition the notification dated 22- 4-1979 treating Quarter No, 5-E, 6/18, New Karachi as an abandoned property, orders dated 14-2- 80, 15-11-1981 and 1-12-1981 passed by Deputy Administrator, rejecting the application of the petitioner under section 14 of the Abandoned Properties (Management Act) of 1975 (to be called hereinafter as the Act) and demanding rent of the Quarter from the Petitioner at the rate of Rs, 150 per month and arrears of rent respectively and order dated 11-12-1981 passed by Board of Trus-.
2. Tees of Abandoned Properties refusing to stay the recovery of rent and arrears of rent. The circumstances under which the present petition has been filed are as under:- ' Quarter bearing No, 6/18, 5-E, New Karachi was allotted to one Muhammad Ashraf son of Abdul Razzak (to be described hereinafter as the allottee) under rehabilitation scheme. The petitioner who is brother of the allottee alleged to have purchased the quarter for a sum of Rs, 750 on 27-7- 1965 by virtue of a writing which is filed as Annexure "A-4" to the petition. The above property was treated as an abandoned property by virtue of a notification issued by the Office of Administrator of Abandoned Properties bearing No, Admn-AP/Pub-29/IHM/CD/75 dated 17-4-1979. After publication of the aforesaid notification the petitioner preferred a claim under section 14 of the Act which was heard by the Deputy Administrator of Abandoned Properties and by order dated 14-4- 1980 he rejected the claim of petitioner and held that the property was rightly treated as an abandoned property since it belonged to Muhammad Ashraf who was a specified person within the meaning of the Act, The evidence produced before the Deputy Administrator by the petitioner was fully considered and findings were given against the petitioner. The Deputy Administrator for detailed reasons given in his order held the allottee of the Quarter to be a 'specified person' and also did not accept the alleged transfer in favour of the petitioner as evidenced by Exh. A/4. A frer rejecting the application of petitioner under section 14 of the Act Deputy Administrator called upon the petitioner to pay rent at the rate of Rs, 150 per month in respect of the above property as well as arrears of rent. The petitioner appears to have applied to the Board of Trustees for stay of the order of Deputy Administrator demanding rent of the Quarter Rs, 150/- per month as well as arrears of rent which has been refused. All the above orders are challenged in this petition. Mr. Nasiruddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before us.
3. ' It is firstly contended that the notification dated 22-4-1979 treating the property as abandoned property is wholly without jurisdiction as it was issued by the order of Director (Judicial). It is contended that under section 11 of the Act it is the Administrator alone who can publish the list of Abandoned Properties. We have seen the original notification which is filed as C/1 along with the petition. The notification is published by the Office of Administrator, Abandoned Properties. The fact that in the notification it is also mentioned that it has been issued by order of Director (Junicial) does dot make the notification without jurisdiction. Section 11 of the Act relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner only requires the Administrator to publish a list of the properties which are treated as abandoned properties. It nowhere provided that such a notification is to be signed or issued under the signatures of the Administrator.
4. ' We therefore, find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel. It is not contended that the Deputy Administrator wrongly refused to recognize the sale in favour of the petitioner of the disputed Quarter. The Deputy Administrator, considered all the evidence produced before him and on a proper appreciation of the same came to the conclusion that the quarter could not be transferred in favour of the petitioner by the specified persons. It is admitted before us that the disputed quarter still stands in the name of the allottee. In these circumstances the findings of the Deputy Administrator that the property belonged to a 'specified person' cannot be described as perverse or contrary to evidence on record. In so far the orders of Deputy Administrator demanding rent and arrears of rent are concerned the learned counsel was unable to point out any illegality in these orders. We therefore find no justification for interference with the impugned orders and dismiss this petition summarily.