S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The dispute in this petition relates to House No. 9/185 situated in Lalamusa District Gujrat. The said house was allotted on 10-5-1952 to Abdul Haq father of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein. It was transferred to the widow of Abdul Haq on the basis of C.H. Form submitted by her but in the P.T.O. Issued to her the number of the house was shown as 9/281 Lalamusa. In the circumstances the house was included in the auction list but was deleted on representation made by the said widow to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner was later inducted as a tenant in the said house. He executed a rent deed and also sent money orders paying rent. The petitioner later himself applied for the transfer of the house under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 thereupon moved the Settlement Authorities for correction by substituting House No. 9/281 shown in the P.T.O. To 9/185. The matter was remanded by the Settlement Commissioner to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The request was, however, refused by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who, by his order, dated 22-4-1976, directed that the house may be transferred to the petitioner. This order was challenged by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 through a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed as per impugned judgment.
2. The learned High Court found that the house bearing No. 9/2811 stood transferred to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and it was by mistake' that in the transfer documents issued to the widow of Abdul Haq the number of the house was shown as 9/281 instead of 9/185. The judgment also shows that the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was accompanied by the petitioner himself, had admitted the execution of the rent deed, letters and payment of rent of the house. The learned High Court also recorded the fact that the petitioner was present in person and had also admitted himself the writing of the letters acknowledging the tenancy in respect of the house.
3. The learned counsel attempted to argue before us that the concession recorded on behalf of the petitioner in para. 2 of the judgment did not reflect the correct position. This we are not inclined to accept as not only it was the counsel of the petitioner who had made the statement but the petitioner was also present in the High Court and had admitted having written the letters acknowledging the tenancy. The finding of the learned High Court that the recording of the house number as 9/281 in the transfer documents was a mistake, in the facts and circumstances of the case is unexceptionable, particularly when it has been shown that the said house stands already transferred to respondents Nos. 3 and 4. We, therefore, do not find it to be a fit case for grant of leave and the petition is accordingly dismissed.