1. ' This suit is filed by one Jaffar Khan, against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants were duly served in the case and Mr. Zuffiqar Ali, Advocate had filed power on their behalf but thereafter he absented himself and was consequently debarred from filing written statement by the Additional Registrar on 4th October, 1983. Thereafter, this case came up before me for final disposal on 21st November, 1983 when Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, requested for adjournment to produce the original documents in the case. The plaint in the case is on oath and it is stated therein that the plaintiff is in occupation of tenement No, G/6, of the property bearing No, V-A-56/SB/3/32, since 1956. It is alleged that the plaintiff's father was paying rent of the premises in his occupation to the Custodian. The aforesaid premises was initially transferred to the plaintiff by the Settlement Authorities but on the representation of one Shah Zaman, the predecessor-in- interest of the present defendants, the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled by the Settlement Authorities on the ground that it was part and parcel of the premises transferred to said Shah Zaman. The plaintiff agitated against the cancellation of his transfer before the Settlement Authorities, High Court and finally before the Supreme Court and by judgment dated 6th March, 1975 passed in Civil Petition for leave to Appeals Nos. C-159 and K-160 of 1974 the controversy between the parties was set at rest finally. The certified copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court filed by Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, shows that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was refused by the Settlement Authorities on the ground that it was a common passage and as such did not constitute a house within the meaning of section 2 (4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. This finding was upheld by the Supreme Court and it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the transfer of the property as the common passage in his possession could not be treated as house for purposes of its transfer under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff being in undisputed possession of portion in his occupation should be declared as tenant of the premises. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendants have recently demolished a portion in their own possession and the plaintiff apprehends that he will be forcibly ousted from the premises by the defendants. In so far the relief for declaration is concerned it is not necessary to go into this question in the present suit as apprehension expressed by the plaint in the suit that he is likely to be dispossessed forcibly by the defendant could be adequately safeguarded only by granting him the other relief claimed in the suit. The other relief claimed in the suit relates to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him directly or indirectly by force from the premises in his occupation. From the documents produced by the learned counsel and the averments made in the plaint there is no doubt that the plaintiff has in occupation of the portion of the premises since before 1958 and that the property in his occupation was once also transferred in his favour by the Settlement Authorities but it was cancelled on the ground that the portion in his occupation did not constitute a house. In spite of the fact that the portion in possession of the plaintiff was not considered to be house it is clear that he could not be evicted there from except in due process of law. I accordingly decree the suit of the plaintiff only with regard to the prayer of injunction and direct that the plaintiff will not be dispossessed from the portion of the house bearing No, V-A-56/SB 3/32 in his occupation by the defendants except in due process of law. As the defendants have not contested the proceedings there will be no order as to costs.