' The Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Arifwala is present and has produced the record. Parawise comments have also been perused. It is stated by the Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, that the General Bus Stand, Arifwala alongwith 10 shops constructed by the Municipal Committee with two offices are in possession of the petitioners. The leasehold rights of the General Bus Stand alongwith the shops and offices were auctioned and the lease for the same was granted to the highest bidder. It is further submitted, that the auction of lease includes the right to recover the rent of the said shops in possession of the petitioners and also the use of the offices by the auction purchaser.
It is further submitted that the shopkeepers-petitioners have also occupied the offices and are not paying the rent, because of the orders of this Court restraining their eviction. The agreement executed between the Municipal Committee and the auction purchaser has also been perused.
The said document clearly establishes, that right to recover the rent of the shops was also auctioned alongwith the lease of the Bus Stand.
2. Mr.Muhammad Younas Bhatti, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners contended, that the right to recover the rent vesting it the Municipal Committee could not have been auctioned, because there are instructions to the contrary. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the instructions on the subject. In my view these instructions do not have the force of Rules and secondly they pertain to the category of shops different than the subject-matter of this writ petition. The shops in possession of the petitioners are integrant part of the General Bus Stand and they cannot be severed from the Bus Stand so as to be governed by these instructions. It is within the discretion of the Municipal Committee to auction what they deem fit in the circumstances of the case. It is regretable to note that despite the directions issued by this Court, the petitioners are not depositing any rent and, therefore, the auction purchaser is deducting the amount of rent from the lease money to be paid to the Municipal Committee as a consequence of which the Municipal Committee is suffering due to the lack of funds. It is further submitted that the previous auction purchaser also used to recover rent from the petitioners at the rate of Rs,400 per month. This assertion has been controverted by Mr. Muhammad Younas Bhatti, Advocate, but since this is a disputed question of fact, at this stage, I would not probe into it, suffice it would be to mention that if the petitioners want to retain the possession of the shops, they shall deposit ,the arrears of rent and shall also pay the future rent at the rate of Rs,400 per month. So long the dispute is not settled, the petitioners shall deposit the arrears of rent in this Court within three days of the passing of this order. In the event of the default on the part of the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent in this Court and to pay the future monthly rent they shall be liable to be evicted. This petition shall now come up for final hearing in the 2nd week of February, 1987.