1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The short question requiring determination on which leave was granted in this appeal is; whether the Settle--ment authorities were right in treating the annexe in dispute, as a part of the main bungalow and transferring it as such to respon--dent No. 2, Mr. G. M. D. Ghauri (hereinafter described as the respondent), in refutation of the claim of the appellant-Mrs. Gladys M. Jacob, that she was eligible for its transfer as it was an independent residential unit, separate from the main bungalow, of which she has been an allottee in possession since November 1954.
2. The brief facts are as follows: The main house and the annexe in dispute bear a common property No. S. 41R/16, in the Municipal Corporation Assessment Register, 1946. In the Rehabilitation records the property is subdivided bearing Nos. 16-A and 16-B, Queens Road, Lahore, due presumably to their separate allotment to the respective allottees. This property along with some other properties in Lahore belonged to an evacuee owner named Dhani Chand. The main bungalow 16-A was requisitioned and allotted to the respondent in the year 1957. On the 27th of July 1959, the appellant applied for the transfer of the annexe which was In her possession as an allottee on an NCH form.
3. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, however, transferr--ed the main bungalow as well as the annexe to the respondent who is admittedly a claimant displaced person. In his order dated the 18th of November 1959, he observed that "the respondent Mr. Ghulam Mohyuddin Ghori is the only deserving applicant for the whole house. Appendix X may be issued to him for the whole bungalow including the annexe, which is in possession of a non-claimant Mr. Jacob and is a part of the main house". The appellant fought out her claim before the higher Settlement authorities in appeal and revision on the contention that the annexe in her possession was a separate residential unit and that she was entitled to its transfer as a displaced person. The Settle--ment authorities have not accepted her status as a displaced person and they have further held throughout that the annexe in dispute is a part of the main bungalow without a separate entity. The appellant has also failed in getting relief from the High Court in writ jurisdiction.
4. Mr. M. Anwar, the learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that the Settlement authorities have patently acted beyond their jurisdiction in combining what are physically two independent and separate houses into one house and transferring them to the respondent as a single residential unit. It was submitted by the learned counsel that according to the survey plan on the record, Sheet No. M-9-3, Mozang, Lahore, prepared in the year 1934-40, the annexe in dispute is shown to be separate from the main house by a wire fencing and a hedge. The distance between the two is 21 feet from the nearest points and both stand on Survey No. 2387. It was further submitted by the learned counsel by reference to the affidavit of one Mr. Cama, (page 47 of the Paper Book) that the cottage 16-B, was rented out by the owner to different tenants independently of the train bungalow; first to Mr. Bawa, and then to Mr. Karainlia and that the appellant has been in its possession as an allottee after the departure of Mr. Karainjia to England since 1954.
5. The question whether the annexe is a part of the main bun--galow or has a separate entity is essentially one of fact which has been found against the appellant by all the Settlement authori-- ties. This finding was not susceptible of interference in the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court unless it was found to be arbitrary, capricious or mala fide. Interference would be entirely unwarrant--ed even if the superior Courts, on their own judgment favoured the division of the house or considered it feasible to hold that the annexe was a separate residential unit independently of the main house.
6. A large number of circumstances in the present case, however, support the finding of the Settlement authorities that the original owner had constructed and intended the disputed annexe to be as adjunct of the main house. According to the true copy of a lease deed on record, dated the 11th April 1922, the entire residential premises namely the main house and the annexe, which is referred to there as the outhouse of the bungalow, were leased out by the evacuee owner to Mrs. F .N. Cama,.t4e mother of Mr, Cama, referred to above. It seems that the entire premises remained in her tenancy uptill 1932 whereafter the annexe was rented out to other tenants first to one Mr. Bawa and then to Mr. Karainjia. Not being equipped with all the amenities, the tenants had to be provid-- ed with a garage and servant quarters, which were situated in the compound of the bungalow on the other side of the hedge which divides the annexe from the main house. The annexe does not have any lawn attached to it and even the appellant herself is in occu--pation of a servant quarter and a garage which are situated in the main compound beyond the hedge of the disputed annexe, mentioned above.
7. It is a significant circumstance that the annexe in question faces the main house, which is a clear indication that the owner had intended it to be a part of the bungalow, presumably to be used as a connected guest apartment. It is also noteworthy that in answer to an inquiry made by the appellant from the Secretary of the Lahore Municipal Corporation about the assessment of the property No. S-41-R-16, as it existed in 1946, the reply received was that the property is assessed as one unit at an annual value of Rs. 3,294 on the basis of a monthly rent of Rs. 305 and that separate portions of the building had not been assessed individually.
8. According to the proviso to section 2 (4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1958, where any building or premises not being a big mansion or a hotel are In the possession of several persons, then unless the Chief Settlement Commissioner orders otherwise, the whole of such building or premises shall be deemed to be a house. Even assuming that the annexe is a separate residential unit in occupation of the appellant, being .Within the same residential premises as the main bungalow, the entire premises has to be treated as one house unless the Chief Settlement Commissioner orders it to be otherwise. In the present case the Chief Settlement Commissioner has chosen to hold that the annexe is a part of the main house and on the facts found no exception can be taken to his jurisdiction for making that decision and to hold that it is without lawful authority.
9. We dismiss the appeal but in the circumstances of the case make no order as to coats.