1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against an order made by a Division blench of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan on 8-12-72, whereby a Consti--tution Petition filed by the petitioner, Khadim Hussain, in respect of a plot of land situated on Lawrence Road, Karachi, was dis--missed in limine.
2. The relevant facts are that respondent No. 2, Ibrahim Fikri, had obtained a lease of this plot from the Deputy Commissioner of Karachi. On the 12th of June 1967, the Deputy Commissioner forfeited the lease on the ground that certain construction had been raised on the plot in breach of the terms and conditions of the lease. The lessee thereupon filed an appeal which was only partly accepted by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Karachi. The lessee filed a further appeal before the Board of Revenue which was accepted by a learned Member of that Board by his order dated the 7th of May 1970. The order of forfeiture of the plot was set aside, and it was observed that the K.M.C/ K.D.A. Authorities were at liberty to take proper action against the occupant, if he had raised any construction without their proper approval.
3. The petitioner had entered upon the plot in dispute as a tenant of the lessee, namely, respondent No. 2. On coming to know of the forfeiture of the lease by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector of Karachi, he started -paying rent to the Deputy Commissioner. When the forfeiture was set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue, in second appeal, the petitioner felt aggrieved for the reason that he apprehended that the unauthorised structures put up by him might be removed by the K.M.C/K.D.A. Authorities. Accordingly, he filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue which was, however, dismissed by the learned Additional Member of the Board by his order dated the 30th of October 1972, observing that the petitioner had no locus standi in the matter as he was not a party to the proceedings at any stage and was, therefore, not competent to file a review petition.
4. It appears that the learned Deputy Commissioner had also made a reference requesting for review of the appellate order of the Member, Board of Revenue, but that reference was also rejected.
5. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Board of Revenue to review its earlier appellate order of the 9th of May 19 70, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Judges, however, refused to interfere for the reason that the structures put up by the petitioner were admittedly without obtaining permission from the K.M.C. Or the K.D.A. Authorities, and they could not see how .Any objection would be taken to the observation made in this behalf by the learned Member, Board of Revenue.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, was in error in holding that the petitioner had no locus stand! To maintain the review apple-- cation, as he was admittedly the owner of the construction put up on the plot in dispute, that the High Court had failed to appreciate that on forfeiture of the plot the petitioner had been accepted by the Deputy Commissioner of Karachi as the lessee, and that there was also an error in thinking that permission had to be obtained from the K-M.C./K.D.A. For putting up the structure.
7. We see no merit in these submissions. The petitioner, as a sub-lessee under respondent No. 2, did not have any independent locus stand! To maintain the review petition before the Board of Revenue, to the prejudice of the interests of his landlord. He was not a party to the forfeiture proceedings, nor in the appeals filed by respondent No. 2 to challenge the forfeiture. The Board of Revenue was, therefore, right in refusing to entertain his review petition.
8. The fact that the rent was accepted by the Deputy Commis--sioner's Office from the petitioner did not by itself create any right or entitlement in his favour. His rights, if any, were clearly subject to the rights of his landlord, namely, respondent No. 2, who was the lessee under the State. The question whether prior approval or permission had to be obtained from the K.M.C. Or K.D.A. Authorities for buildings erected by the petitioner has not been finally decided in the proceedings impugned by the petitioner, and all that has been said is that it is for these authorities to deal with the matter and it is not for the Deputy Commissioner to interfere on this account. It will, therefore, be open to the petitioner to defend his position if and when the K.M.C. Or K.D.C. Initiate any action in respect of the alleged unauthorised construction.
9. It is established law that in writ proceedings the High Courts do not come to the aid of injustice, nor do they perpetuate illegal orders and actions. The High Court was, therefore, right in refusing to give relief to the petitioner, as he was a mere sub-lessee under respondent No. 2, and did not have any independent status in the matter.
10. For the foregoing reasons the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.