' TANZIL-UR-REHMAN, J.--This is a Constitutional Petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.
2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly stated are that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of the premises bearing City Survey No,139 Ward 'B' corresponding to the Custodian No,243-HA, Shah Bazar, Shandadpur,' which was transferred by the Settlement Department to respondent No,2 in an auction held on 22-2-1960 which was confirmed on 31-3-1960. P.T.O. Was issued to him on 19-1-1961 followed by the issuance of P.T.D. On 5-10-1964.
3. The respondent No,3 filed an ejectment case on the ground of default in payment of rent against the petitioner on 14-9-1968 being R.C. No,49 of 1968, subsequently re-flumbered as Rent Case No,3 of 1979. The petitioner took a plea in the said rent case that the premises in question was an evacuee trust property and as such he was not liable to pay the rent to the respondent. There was protracted litigation as to the first appeal and the second appeal to the High Court on the question of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and ultimately the ejectment, on the ground of wilful default, was allowed by the learned Rent Controller by his order, dated 26-5-1982. The petitioner filed First Rent Appeal No,724 of 1982 in this Court which was dismissed by one of us by order, dated 23-10-1984. The matter went up to the Supreme Court in a petition for special leave to appeal which was also dismissed. (Refer Civil Petition No,537-K of 1984).
4. The petitioner then filed an application before the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board (respondent No,2) at Lahore, who, after hearing the parties on 17-1-1985, refused to interfere with the permanent transfer deed issued to respondent No,3 before the target date as laid down in Act No,XIII of 1975 as no mala fide had been alleged neither by the petitioner nor by the counsel for the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The learned Chairman, therefore, validated the permanent transfer deed in favour of respondent No,2 and the petitioner's application was rejected. Against this order, the petitioner has filed this petition.
5. In support of the above petition Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the impugned order suffers from illegality inasmuch as the requirements as laid down in section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act No,XIII of 1975, which provides for validation of certain transfers, were not fulfilled in the instant case. He thus submitted that the price of the property transferred in auction was not paid against the satisfaction of verified claims. We then called upon the learned counsel to file an affidavit as to the mode of payment of auction price and also a copy of the.Application filed before respondent No,2.
Today, he has placed on record a copy of the application filed before respondent No,2 and copies of several agreements of association, instead of the affidavit. At a cursary glance of the said agreements of association it is eviden that the property was transferred to respondent No,3 against the satisfaction of the verified claims by agreements of association white are of as long back as 1960 i.e. Much prior to the stipulated date i.e. June, 1968. It cannot, therefore, be said by any stretch of imagination that the property was not transferred to respondent No,3 against the verified claim of evacuee property. It is also noticeable that no such ground was taken in the application filed by the petitioner before respondent No,2.
6. The property was transferred about 25 years ago in favour of respondent No,3 and the petitioner was in full know of it since 1961 when the first notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act was sent to him by respondent No,3 or, at best, in 1968 when theB ejectment case was filed by the respondent No,3 against the petitioner in which a specific defence was taken by the petitioner that the property was an evacuee trust property, he slept over the matter for all that time. He did not take any step to challenge the order of transfer either before the Settlement Authority or the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board. We have also painfully noted that the petitioner has been able to keep away respondent No,3 from reaping fruits of the property on one pretext or the other since last two decades.
7. In all these circumstances we find no justification for an interference in the impugned order passed by respondent No,2 is accordance with law which also seems to be in line with the policy of the Displaced Persons Law to settle, the rights of the transferees is property and not to keep them in fluid state. The petition is without any substance and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.