The dispute involved in this Constitutional petition relates to a residential building situated in the Lahore Cantonment area. Respondent No. 1, Ch. Fazal Din, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, made an application against the petitioner. Muhammad Siddique, for his ejectment from the said building. It was alleged by the respondent that the building in dispute was needed by him for himself and his family members. The application, which was resisted by the petitioner, was dismissed by Mr. Muhammad Awais, Additional Controller of Rents, Lahore Cantonment. Hereinafter referred to as the Additional Rent Controller. The respondent, therefore, preferred an appeal against his order. The appeal was accepted by the District Judge, Lahore. It was held by the learned Appellate Authority that the disputed premises were genuinely needed by the respondent and, therefore, ho directed the petitioner to vacate these premises. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned District Judge, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to hear the petition on the basis whereof the impugned order has been passed by the learned District Judge. His argument was that Mr. Muhammad Awais was serving as Additional Executive Officer of Lahore Cantonment when, vide Notification No. S. R. O. 863(1 j/76, dated the 25th August, 1976 (copy Annexure "D"), the Federal Government had appointed the Additional Executive Officers of Lahore, Multan and Karachi Cantonments to be the Additional Rent Controllers for their respective Cantonments. It was sub--mitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that according to section 10 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 only one Executive Officer could be appointed for every Cantonment and, therefore, the appointment of Additional Executive Officers for the said Cantonments was contrary to law. On these premises, it was urged by the learned counsel that the appointment of Mr. Muhammad Awais as Additional Rent Controller was without lawful authoriry and the entire proceedings conducted against the petitioner were coram non judice and of no legal consequence. It was, therefore, prayed that the order of eviction made by the learned District Judge and the notification referred to above may be quashed.
3. The notification in question was issued by the Federal Government under subsection(2) of section 6 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. According to these provisions of law, the Federal Government can appoint "a person" as Additional Controller of Rents, who, in this order, is being A referred to as Additional Rent Controller. As observed by M. S. H. Qureshi J. In Hafeez-ur- Rehman v. The Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt. And 2 others 1981 CLC 185, when the law permits the appointment of "a person" to be the Additional Rent Controller, the Federal Government can, under section 15 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, make such appointment also by virtue of the office of such person. The contention raised before me was advanced in the case of Hafeez-ur- Rehman as well but had failed inter alia for the following reasons :- "4. The contention is not tenable because in the first instance it is nobody's case that there are more than one Executive Officer in the Lahore Cantonment. An Additional Executive Officer cannot be said to be an Executive Officer even though he may be discharging some of the functions of an Executive Officer."
These observations hold good in the case in hand and, therefore, with respect, I adopt the aforesaid reasoning against the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel. In this connection, I would also like to add that even if the appointment of Mr. Awais to the office of the Additional Executive Officer was not in order, he was certainly "a person" holding that office and, there--fore, no valid exception could be taken to his appointment as Additional Rent Controller under subsection (2) of section 6 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act. In this view of the matter, I am unable to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification in relation to his appointment as Additional Rent Controller was without lawful authority and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to entertain application resulting in the order of eviction.
4. It was also urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the evidence produced by the respondent the premises in question were needed by his son, Masood Ahmed but as he (Masood Ahmed) was staying in England and there was nothing to show that he intended to return to Pakistan, the petitioner could not be directed to vacate the premises in dispute for the aforesaid son of ,the respondent. This plea is not supported by the record of evidence. It is clear from the statement of the respondent's attorney, Muhammad Aslam (P. W. 1) that the disputed building is not required for Masood Ahmed only. Instead, it is needed by the entire f4mily of the respondent, including his eight sons. It was also deposed by Muhammad Aslam that Masood Ahmed intended to return to Pakistan and start living here because he had three grown-up daughters. This evidence is in consonance with the averment of personal need made by the respondent, namely, that the disputed building was required by him and his family. The finding of the learned District Judge on the issue of personal need, therefore, does not call for any interference.
5. There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed in limine.