QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.--- Through this revision petition under section 115, C.P.C., the petitioner, Zalib Khan, impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Peshawar dated 18-6-2014, whereby, two appeals of the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge-XVII, Peshawar, dated 26.09.2013 were dismissed with costs. The learned Civil Judge, vide his said judgment dated 26.09.2013, dismissed Suit No,107/1 of the petitioner, while granted a decree in Suit No,193/1.A of the respondent No,1, Nadar Khan.
2. The petitioner had lodged suit for declaration, permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction, whereby he challenged cancellation of allotment of Flat No,174-C Phase-V, Hayatabad, Peshawar and allotment of the said flat to respondent No,1, Respondent No,1, on the other hand, lodged suit for declaration, permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction to the effect that being employee of PESCO he was a lawful allottee of flat/quarter No,C-174 in PESCO Colony, Phase- V, Hayatabad, Peshawar, vide allotment letter No, 2968-72 dated 02.03.2011 and, as such, entitled to its peaceful possession and that petitioner had no right to retain possession of the said quarter illegally and unlawfully. The pleadings of the parties were reduced to as many as 07 consolidated issues, whereupon evidence of the parties was recorded, and the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2013 was rendered by the learned trial court/Civil Judge-XVII, Peshawar.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.
4. In this case, the dispute relates to allotment of flat/quarter No,C-174, PESCO Colony, Phase-V, Hayatabad, Peshawar, in favour of respondent No,1 and cancellation of earlier allotment in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner impugned cancellation of the earlier allotment in his favour and allotment in favour of respondent No,1 on the grounds that in spite of belonging to a separate setup namely TESCO, he was still entitled to the possession of the flat/quarter in question as he was part of the same organization and even at the moment other employees of TESCO were still occupying flats/quarters in the same premises/colony. He further assailed cancellation of the allotment on the ground of his transfer to a station outside Peshawar, on the basis of his transfer back to Peshawar.
5. The record would show that while serving in PESCO, Hayatabad, Sub-Division, Peshawar, the petitioner was allotted the flat/quarter in question in the year, 2000. As a result of reorganization in the year, 2001, PESCO and TESCO were bifurcated. The petitioner was transferred to TESCO, a separate and distinct entity, and ever-since he is serving in that setup, having no right, whatsoever, in the PESCO Moreover, the petitioner has himself admitted that while serving in A TESCO, he was transferred out of Peshawar to Hangu, Orakzai, Sub-Division on 01.12.2010, but was transferred back to Peshawar on 11.05.2011. The petitioner alleged that allotment in his favour was cancelled on the grounds (i). His transfer to Hangu and (ii). His residential house in Peshawar. Nevertheless, the petitioner managed to retain possession of the flat/quarter even after cancellation of allotment in his favour and its allotment to respondent No,1 in the year 2011.
6. The record would further reveal that in response to a notice dated 29.11.2007 for vacation of the flat/quarter, B the petitioner had undertaken, in writing, to vacate the same and to shift to his own house in Phase-VII Hayatabad, Peshawar, after completion of construction. The petitioner, however, failed to honour his commitment on the pretext that he had sold the house after its completion.
7. Apart from the said unsavory conduct on the part of the petitioner, he miserably failed to show his right to retain possession of the flat/quarter after cancellation of its allotment and allotment of the flat/quarter in favour of respondent No,1 in the aftermath of bifurcation of PESCO and TESCO and transfer/absorption of the petitioner in TESCO, retaining no subsisting right in PESCO, to which the flat/quarter belonged and which was, as such, authorized to allot the same and cancel unauthorized allotment.
8. In view of the above facts, no illegality or irregularity is discernible from the concurrent findings of the trial as well as appellate courts to warrant interference by this court in its revision jurisdiction.
The revision petition, as such, is dismissed with costs.