1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioners bad been in occupa--petition of certain outhouses of the house in question and on the basis of such possession and of their C. H. Forms were allotted the said house. The allotment was, however, subsequently cancelled on the ground that on the basis of their possession of some outhouses of the house they were not entitled to claim transfer of the house.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Judges of the High Court failed to read the definition of `House' in section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, together with paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Act, and this failure has affected their decision. It is argued that reading the said two provisions together the petitioners are entitled to claim transfer of the house on the basis of their possession of the outhouses for there was no difference between the possession of a portion of the main house and the possession of an outhouse of the house.
3. The High Court rejected this contention on the basis of two judgments of this Court, namely, Mst.
4. Fazlun Nisa Begum v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, judgment dated 24-3-1966 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-34 of 1966. This judgment of the Supreme Court was approved in the case o Abdul Hamid Khan v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis--sioner (PLD1966SC719).
5. The learned Judges of the High Court, therefore, rightly rejected the petitioners' contention.
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have filed an application under Scheme No. 8. This remedy, if available to the petitioners, will be considered on the merits of the petitioners' application.