' This appeal under section 100, C. P. C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th September, 1966 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby he maintained the judgment and decree dated 6th July, 1965 of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore dismissing the suit of the appellant.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering and disturbing his possession over a `Khokha' situated in Shah Alam Market, Rang Mahal, Lahore. In the plaint it was stated that the plaintiff was lessee under the defendant and terms of the lease having not expired, the notice issued for demolition of `Khokha' during the subsistence of the lease was illegal. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed following issues :-
(1) Is the suit maintainable in the present form ?
(2) Is the Government of West Pakistan a necessary party ?
(3) Is the plaintiff estopped from filing the suit ?
(4) Has any cause of action accrued to the plaintiff ?
(5) Relief.
' The learned trial Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 6th July, 1965 found issues Nos. 1 and 4 in the negative while decided issue Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative. As a result of the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 4 plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff challenged the aforementioned judgment and decree in appeal which was also dismissed on 27th September, 1966. The learned first appellate Court reversed the findings of the learned trial Court on issues Nos.
1 and 4 while maintained the findings of the trait Court on issues Nos. 2 and 3 but dismissed the suit and the appeal filed by the appellant for the reasoning incorporated in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment. The appellant challenged the judgments and decree of the learned lower Courts in this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore decided all the issues in favour of the appellant yet dismissed the suit on the ground that the respondent was competent to evict the appellant under the provisions of West Pakistan Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance IX of 1966. It was submitted that the property in dispute even if assumed to be of the Provincial Government was under the management of the defendant, and therefore, the defendant could not issue notice for the eviction of the appellant therefrom.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the appellant was lessee of the property in dispute till 30th June, 1965. He had no entitlement to continue in possession of the disputed property or to maintain the suit for permanent injunction after the expiry of the lease period.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties with reference to the documents on the file. Learned counsel could not controvert the findings of the learned Additional District Judge, in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment to the effect :- "Permanent injunction is a discretionary relief with the Court as is evident from the language used in section 54 of the Specific Relief Act. The above facts which cannot be lost sight of strongly call for exercise of discretion against the appellant."
' He also did not deny that after the expiry of the lease period in respect of the property in dispute on the 30th June, 1965 the appellant had no right to continue in possession thereof.
6. Without adverting to the question as to whether the defendant/ respondent had jurisdiction to seek eviction of the appellant from the disputed property under the provisions of Ordinance IX of 1966 the relief claimed by the appellant for permanent injunction against the defendant cannot be granted when admittedly the appellant was lessee in occupation of the disputed property for a limited period which expired on 30th June, 1965.
7. In the result this appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed with costs.