' Ejaz Afzal Khan, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 02.06.2015 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the learned Judge in its chambers allowed the petition filed by the respondents and set aside the orders of the fora below.
2. Learned ASC appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the property forming subject matter of dispute in this case was originally owned by Roop Lal Mehta; that on his demise it devolved on his legal heirs, who transferred it to Ch. Manzoor Elahi but against an adjustment of loan to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- it was transferred in favour of NICFCL; that Ch. Manzoor Elahi in this view of the fact filed a civil suit against Punjab Cooperative Board for liquidation; that on the basis of a conceding statement, a decree was passed in his favour that after the demise of Ch. Manzoor Elahi his legal heirs transferred the whole property in favour of the petitioners through his general attorney; that the petitioners then filed enactment petition against the respondents which was allowed by the Rent Controller and that the order passed by the Rent Controller was maintained in appeal but the learned Single Judge of the High Court in its chambers without considering the evidence on the record reversed the orders of the fora below while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, therefore, the impugned judgment against this legal and factual background cannot be maintained.
3. Learned ASC appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that where the decree passed in favour of late Ch. Manzoor Elahi was declared a nullity by operation of law, the entire superstructure raised thereon would automatically collapse and thus the petitioners are left with no locus standi much less a cause of action to institute any proceeding for the enactment of the respondents.
4. We have gone through the entire record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned ASCs for the parties.
5. It is not disputed on the record that the decree in favor of Ch. Manzoor Elahi was passed on 20.12.1992. It is also not disputed on the record that in case this decree is taken out of account neither Ch. Manzoor Elahi nor his successors-in-interest are left with any interest or a right whatever. How a decree passed against an Undesirable Cooperative Societies or against property and assets thereof is dealt with if passed after first day of July, 1990 is a question which is squarely answered by Section 16 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Ordinance, 1992 which reads as under:- "16. Abatement of all suits, proceedings, etc. (1). All suits or proceedings pending before any Court or authority against an Undesirable Co- operative Society in respect of the assets and liabilities shall stand abated on the appointment of the Liquidator: Provided that fresh proceedings against such a society may be initiated before the Co-operatives Judge within 60 days of such abatement.
(2) All decrees, judgments and orders passed by any Court except the Supreme Court, against an Undesirable Cooperative Society or against properties and assets thereof on or after the first day of July, 1990 shall be executable and of no legal effect, unless such judgment, decree or order be confirmed by the Co-operatives Judge after hearing the concerned parties.
(3) Any person who relies on such decrees, judgments or orders, may within 60 days of the appointment of the Liquidator, apply to the Co-operatives Judge for its confirmation."
6. The above quoted provision clearly and unequivocally shows that any decree which is passed after 1st July, 1990 shall be a nullity in the eye of law. Yes a decree-holder could apply within 60 days of the appointment of Liquidator to the Cooperative Judge for its confirmation but there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners ever applied to the Cooperative Judge or have ever urged it at any stage of the proceedings. Where a decree has become a nullity in the eye of law by the operation of law and the decree-holder did not apply to the competent forum for its confirmation as mentioned above, he is just a nonentity and thus cannot have a locus-standi or a cause of action to initiate any proceeding against the tenants of such property. The learned Judge of the High Court in its chambers rightly allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgments of the fora below. The view taken by the High Court being unexceptionable is not open to any interference.
7. However when we inquired from the learned ASC for the respondents as what are the terms of the tenancy, his reply was that the respondents have been occupying the property in their capacity as tenants for the last fifty years on payment of Rs. 50/- per month. How so meager a rent when the rental value of similarly located properties has gone sky high. We also failed to understand how have the concerned Government functionaries been so indifferent to this state of things and acquiescing to a rent which is too modest and meager. ####The learned ASC for the respondents stated at the bar that respondents would pay a reasonable rent in case it is fixed by the Board. In this view of the matter we while dismissing this petition direct the Board to assess the proper rental value of the property in occupation of the respondents and recover the same from them with 25% increase after every three years from the date of commencement of tenancy. While parting with this judgment, we also observe that if the petitioners or his predecessor-in-interest has deposited any amount with the Board, he shall be at liberty to seek its recovery under the law before the competent forum. Copy of this judgment be also dispatched to the Board for necessary action.