1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This leave petition arises out of a dispute over the allotment of the disputed house to respondent No. 1, Habibud Din.
2. It appears that the house was allotted to respondent No. 1 on the 22nd February 1948, and he based his claim of transfer on this order. The petitioner, on the other hand, relied upon her own allotment made on the 18th October 1952 for the transfer of the house. Obviously the allotment of respondent No.-1 is much earlier than that of the petitioner. It appears further that respondent No. 1 took possession of the house on 21-5-1948 in pursuance of his allotment order dated the 22nd February 1948. Ghulam Sabir deceased, the husband of petitioner had occupied a portion of the disputed house on the 10th September 1947. However, it was on the 10th of October 1950, that two rooms of the house were allotted to him by the Rehabilitation Authorities. On the death of Ghulam Sabir the two rooms allotted to him were allotted to the petitioner by the Rehabilitation Authorities on the 18th October 1952. It is thus evident that the authorised possession of Ghulam Sabir deceased commenced on and from the 10th of October 1950 and that his occupation prior to that was unauthorised. The petitioner, therefore, could not take advantage of the unauthorised occupation by her deceased husband. If the petitioner chose to rely upon the unauthorised occupation of her deceased husband, she would be an indirect claimant and would not, therefore, have a preferential claim to that of the said respondent. The Notification of the Central Government dated the 7th March 1960 covered only spouses of authorised occupants, in allottees and did not therefore, apply to the petitioner.
3. The learned Judges of the High Court rightly held that in either case she could not successfully compete with respondent No. 1 in the matter of the transfer of the disputed house. This decision is fully in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Ghulam Fatima v.
4. Abdul Ghani etc. Dated 7th October 1966 (C. P. S. L. A. No. 479 of 1966). The facts and the decision in the said Supreme Court case fully apply to the facts of the present case. We accordingly hold that the High Court was right in allowing the respondent's appeal.
5. The petition is accordingly dismissed.