MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN , J.-A P. T. O. In respect of the property in dispute was issued on 27-7-1960 to Mst. Saeed-un-Nisa. A permanent transfer deed was issued to her on the 23rd of October, 1963.
Another P. T. O. Was issued on the 24th of October, 1960, in respect of the same property in favour of the petitioner. A permanent transfer deed was issued in his favour on the i7th September, 1962.
2. On the 25th of August, 1960, Mst. Saeed un-Nisa entered into an agreement to sell the property in favour of Muhammad Ashiq predecessor---in-interest of respondent. She ultimately sold it to him on the 28th of August, 1972.
3. Throughout this period, Khalid Mahmood, respondent No. 8, occupied the property in dispute as the tenant of Mst. Saeed-un-Nisa and admittedly continued to pay rent to her. He, however, deferred the payment of rent to Muhammad Ashiq on one pretext or the other wherefore an applica--tion for ejectment was filed against him in the year 1971, by Muhammad Ashiq.
Muhammad Ashiq died during the pendency of the petition and respondents Nos. 1 to 7 are his legal representatives. The Rent Controller passed a decree of ejectment against Khalid Mahmood and in favour of the legal representatives of Muhammad Ashiq on the 9th of December, 1976.
4. On 3-1-1977 Muhammad Hanif petitioner filed an ejectment applica--tion against Khalid Mahmood and obtained an order of ejectment from the Rent Controller on the 19th of April, 1977. On 3-7-1977 Khalid Mahmood delivered possession to the petitioner in pursuance of the warrant.
5. On 31-7-1977 Khalid Mahmood appeared before the Civil Judge in response to notice issued to him in respect of an application for execution of the order of ejectment passed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 7. He stated before the learned Civil Court that he had already made over possession.
6. On 3-10-1977 notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why he was resisting the warrant of ejectment. He appeared and claimed that he was in possession in his own right.
7. The learned Executing Court by its order dated 13 12-1977 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it was not vacated by the appellant. An execution first appeal was filed before the learned District Judge which was dismissed on 17-9-1978. A revision petition was consequently filed in the High Court which also was dismissed. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
8. It may be mentioned that meanwhile Muhammad Hanif followed the matter up by filing a suit on the 20th November, 1977, claiming that he was the owner of the property in dispute and that the sale in favour of the decree-holder/respondent was not legal. This suit was dismissed, on merits on 30-7-1978 by the civil Court
9. It has not been denied before us that the P. T. O. Issued to Mst. Saeed-un Nisa on 27-7-1960 that is to say three months before a similar P. T. O. Was issued to Muhammad Hanif in respect of the same property, was never challenged by Muhammad Hanif before any of the Settlement Courts.
The Provisional Transfer Order in respect of the property having been issued earlier in point of time to Mst. Saeed-un-Nisa, she was entitled to the issuance of a P. T. D. Which was given to her on 21-2- 1963. In the presence of this Provisional Transfer Order the Rehabilitation Department had no authority to issue a Provisional Transfer Order in favour of Muhammad Hanif on 24-10-1960, and any P. T. D. Issued on the basis of the later P. T. O. Would have no validity in the eye of law.
Muhammad Hanif has, therefore, no case whatsoever in respect of the house in dispute and he could not remain in occupation thereof.
10. We are in respectful accord with the judgment of the High Court and, therefore, dismiss this application and decline to grant leave to appeal.