1. ' The appellant filed a suit for declaration and possession alleging that he alongwith one Ahmed Ali the respondent No,2 were joint allottee of two quarters bearing No,1-D-115/5 and 1-D-115/6 Landhi Refugee Colony, Karachi on hire-purchase system. In September, 1961, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer K.D.A. Who separated this joint allotment and Quarter No,1-0-115-5 was allotted to the appellant while the other remained in the name of respondent No,2. The appellant thereafter regularly paid the hire-purchase instalments for quarter No,I-0-115/5. It was alleged that on 5th July, 1953 the appellant was served with a notice issued by the Administrative Officer, Landhi Township KDA calling upon the appellant to appear on 8th July, 1963. In this notice no further detail was given. The appellant appeared before the Administrative Officer when he was asked to furnish details of the allotment order and the family members which was accordingly supplied. It was also pleaded that on 28th February, 1963 when appellant was out the K.D.A. Authorities dispossessed the family members of the appellant from the quarter and all his belongings there thrown out. The appellant served a notice on K.D.A. Under Art. 131 of K.D.A.
2. Order, and thereafter filed suit on 2nd November, 1963. Originally the suit was filed only against respondent No,1 i,e, Karachi Development Authority, but subsequently it was amended in October, 1964 and the respondent No,2 was also joined as a defendant. It was pleaded that respondent No,1 had handed over possession of the disputed quarter to respondent No,2. The appellant had prayed for judgment and decree for declaration that the ejectment of the appellant from the disputed quarter by K.D.A. Was illegal, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and public policy. A further prayer was for a decree for possession.
3. ' The defendant No,1 filed its written statement in which it was pleaded that Quarters Nos.I-D-115/5 and I-D-115/6 Landhi Refugees Colony, Karachi were allotted to Ahmed Ali the respondent No,2 by K.D.A. And the appellant was staying with him as his dependent. It was denied that joint allotment was issued as alleged by the appellant. It was stated that due to family dispute the appellant had preferred an appeal, but the Deputy Chief Re-Settlement Department K.D.A. Allotted a separate quarter on 5th August, 1961 to the appellant without depriving the respondent No,2 from quarters allotted to him. This order on 5th August, 1961 was withdrawn by letter dated 23rd September, 1961 and no separate allotment was to be issued to the appellant, but it was inadvertently issued to the appellant. It was further pleaded that hire-purchase amount was being paid by the respondent No,2. It was further pleaded by K.D.A. That the Director Management by his letter dated 20th June, 1963 cancelled the instructions issued earlier by letter dated 23rd September, 1961. Thereafter realising the mistake, the K.D.A. Offered a separate quarter to the appellant and by notice dated 5th July, 1963 he was called to appear before the Administrative Officer on 8th July, 1963. When the appellant appeared he was informed of the order of the Director Housing and Management for giving another quarter and was asked to vacate the disputed quarter by 13th July, 1963. It has been stated that the appellant was ejected after due and reasonable notice, as he had failed to vacate the quarter and subequently the possession of the quarter was handed over to the respondent No,2.
4. ' The respondent No,2 in his written statement pleaded that he was the sole allottee of the two quarters and on 21/23rd September, 1963 allotment of one of the two quarters namely I-D-115/5 in favour of the respondent No,2 was withdrawn and allotted to the appellant by the respondent No,1.
5. This action of the K.D.A. Has been termed by the respondent No,2 as illegal and therefore he agitated against this action and respondent No,1 decided to restore the disputed quarter to respondent No,2 and allotted another quarter to the appellant but the appellant refused to vacate it, and therefore, he was rightly ejected by K.D.A.
6. ' Before the trial court the appellant examined himself. As both the respondents were not present, nor their witnesses were available their side was closed and suit was decreed on 27th April, 1968.
7. The respondent No,2 filed application under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. But it was dismissed. He, however, also preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.
8. ' In appeal the learned District Judge permitted the respondent No,2 to examine Ansar Hussain an Officer of K.D.A. He deposed that the two quarters were allotted to respondent No,2 which were in his possession. The appellant was allotted a different quarter, but he lived in the disputed quarter and KDA evicted him and gave possession to respondent No,
2. He further stated that allotment order (Exh. 9) in favour of the appellant was issued by KDA under mistake.He has stated that allotment order in favour of respondent No,2 was never cancelled. According to him Exh. 9 was cancelled on 22nd June, 1963. The learned District Judge set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the suit with cost.
9. ' The facts that emerge from the documentary and oral evidence are that both the quarters were originally allotted to the respondent No,2 and in the allotment order the appellant was shown as a dependent of respondent No,2. Thereafter under certain proceedings taken by respondent No,1, it was ordered by the Deputy Chief/Administrative Officer as follows:-- "It has however, been decided that the above order involving an offer of two quarters to Ahmed Ali and one to Shamshad ' Ali be withdrawn and cancelled and both Ahmed Ali and Shamshad All be allowed to continue to live in their separate quarters already occupied by them and pay rent due against each quarter."
10. ' It was in pursuance of this order that the allotment order was issued in favour of the appellant in respect of quarter No,I-D-115/5 Landhi Refugees Colony. As the question of ownership of property in dispute is not the subject-matter of the suit I would refrain from making any observation on that aspect of the case. However, from these documents it is clear that the appellant was in possession of the disputed quarter in respect of which allotment was issued in his favour and he continued to pay the hire-purchase instalments as evidenced by the receipts issued by the K.D.A. Namely Exhs.12 to 17. None of the parties have denied that the appellant was not in possession of the disputed premises. Even in the A evidence of Ansar Hussain which was recorded before the learned Appellate Court, it has been stated that the appellant lived in the disputed quarter and KDA evicted him and gave possession to respondent No,2. These facts clearly establish the possession of the appellant. The question therefore is, whether he was properly and legally evicted from that quarter.
11. ' Mr. Ismail Merchant the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was ejected without any notice and arbitrarily. Mr. S. H. Qizalbash and Mr.A.K. M. Idrees, the learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the appellant was served with a notice dated 5th July, 1963 for appearance and thereafter action was taken against the appellant, as he was unauthorised occupant of the disputed quarter. The notice dated 5th July, 1963 (Exh. 18) addressed to the appellant was in the following terms:-- "You are directed to appear before the undersigned on 6th July, 1963 at 10-00 a.m. Without fail."
12. ' No further record has been produced to show that after appearance on 6th July, 1963 what proceedings were taken and what order was passed. Although Ansar Hussain an officer of K.D.A.
13. Was examined he too has not produced any order cancelling the allotment made in favour of the appellant or any order directing him to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to show any provision of law under which K.D.A. Was authorised in such circumstances to eject the appellant. The appellant on the basis of the evidence produced on record was in possession of the disputed premises. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 he was merely a licensee of the respondent No,2. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 although allotment order was issued in his favour,, it was cancelled and he was ordered to vacate the quarter. In both the circumstances the respondent No,1 was not entitled to forcibly eject the appellant. If he was a licensee then on termination of licence proper proceedings for ejectment should have been taken against him. If the allotment had been cancelled then, there should be a proper order after due notice to the appellant to cancel the allotment and further that he may be ordered to be ejected from that premises. No such orders seem to have been passed or at least placed on record from which their legality could be determined. On the face of it the notice issued was a short, vague and evasive notice. On the basis of such a notice, unless further records are produced to show that proper proceedings were initiated, it is difficult to conclude that KDA had initiated and conducted proper proceedings against the appellant for cancellation of his allotment order much less for ejectment. K.D.A. Has not even produced the order of ejectment. In these circumstances it is manifestly clear that the action of KDA was illegal and against the principle of natural justice. No proper opportunity was given to the appellant before alleged order of ejectment was passed by KDA. The judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate court is set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not in any manner affect or confer any right, or interest which any of the parties may claim in respect of title of the disputed quarter. Appeal is allowed.