1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 1453-R of 1964, dated the 28th October 1964. By this judgment, the writ petition was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of the residential portion of property No. P-143, Douglaspur Bazar' Lyallpur City. Respondent No. 2 was allotted this portion of the property on the 3rd November 1947. The entire property No. P-143 is of a composite nature and consists of three shops and the residential portion over them. Respondent No. 2 who is a non-claimant displaced person filed NCH form on the 31st July 1959 for the transfer of the portion in his possession. The appel--lants also filed two independent CS forms for the transfer of the respective shops in their possession. Another CH form was filed by one Mst. Janat Bibi who is not a party to the present appeal. In all, four transfer applications were filed in respect of the property No. P-143. On the 10th February 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur, without notice to respondent No. 2, rejected his NCH form on the ground that he was a non--claimant. The entire property was transferred in the joint names of the appellants and Mst. Janat Bibi in proportion of one-third each without declaring which part of it was house and which was shop. Respondent No. 2's allegation is that no notice or copy of the ex parte order passed against him was served upon him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as required by para. 11 of the Settlement Scheme No. 1. He further alleged that he made several miscellaneous applications to the Settlement authorities including the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur for transfer of the residential portion of the above property to him but it was of no avail.
3. On learning about the rejection of his NCH form, the res--pondent No. 2, filed an appeal on the 23rd May 1961, before the Additional Settlement Commissioner with an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. This appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Settlement Com--missioner on the 30th May 1962. The learned Officer held that the respondent No. 2 was a non-claimant and had not cleared the arrears of rent and, therefore, he was not entitled to the transfer of the portion of the property in his possession. He further observed that the appeal was time-barred. It is alleged on behalf of respondent No. 2 that on the dismissal of his appeal, he filed a Revision Petition No. 1007 on the 18th June 1962. This revision petition was misplaced in the office of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. Respondent No. 2 filed another applica--tion for the hearing of the duplicate revision petition. On this application, the learned Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated the 29th September 1964, heard the revision petition filed by him and accepted the revision petition. He came to the conclusion that the finding of the Additional Settlement Com--missioner that the appeal was time-barred could not be upheld because there was no indication on the record that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated the 10th December 1959, was ever conveyed to the answering respondent. He further held that the portion in possession of the respondent was indepen--dent house and should be transferred to him on the basis of NCH form. He further observed that the case of respondent No. 2 could not be thrown away on the ground of non-clearance of rent because he was an allottee. He, therefore, transferred the portion in possession of respondent No. 2 as an independent residential tenement on his NCH form.
4. The appellants challenged the above-mentioned order in Writ Petition No. 1453-R of 1964 but a Division Bench of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, by its judgment dated the 28th October 1964, dismissed the writ petition. The matter was taken up in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 324 of 1964, and this Court, by order dated the 22nd December 1964, granted leave to appeal.
5. Special leave was granted to consider the question whether under section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, where no time limit has been fixed for a revision, the revision application could be maintained at any point of time, no matter what had occurred in between. The further ground on which leave was granted was whether after the issuance of the permanent transfer deed, the property had, under the Houses and Shops Transfer Rules, gone out of the compensa--tion pool and was no longer available for transfer to any person.
6. Mr. M. B. Khizar Tamimi, learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellants, contended that the P. T. O.
7. Was issued on the 10th December 1959 and P. T. D. Wag issued on the 16th March 1962, the revision petition was accepted on the 29th September 1964 and the portion in dispute was transferred to respondent No. 2 on- that date. According to the learned Advocate-on---Record, after P. T. D. Was issued to the appellants, the property in dispute had gone out of the compensation pool and it could not be transferred to anybody later on. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate on-Record, relied on S. Anwar Hussain Sani v. Sarfraz Ahmad and others (PLD 1971 SC 669) and Mst. Hajiani Fatima and others v. Ibrahim and others (PLD 1972 Kar. 610). The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us because when the P. T. D. Was issued to the appellants, the appeal of the respondent No. 2 was pending for hearing and it was dismissed on the 30th May 1962.
8. The respondent No. 2 filed the revision petition on the 18th June 1962 well within time and, therefore, P. T. D. Was issued subject to the result of the revision petition. The definition of the final order in P. T.
9. D. Rules also shows that it is subject to the appeal and revision filed by a party. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the P. T. D. Issued in favour of the appellants was immune from attack and was not subject to the appeal and revision filed by respondent No. 2. The facts of the present case clearly show that the P. T. D. Was issued during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, permanent transfer in favour of the appellants was pendente lite.
10. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that respondent No. 2 had given in writing to the D. S. C. That `here does not want Vie property in dispute. This contention is not supported by any reliable evidence on the record. There is nothing to show that any such statement was made by the respondent No. 2.
11. It was next contended that respondent No. 2 had not cleared the arrears of rent and, therefore, he was not entitled to the transfer of the portion in his possession. This contention also is without substance. Respondent No. 2 was an allottee and, therefore, was not required to clear the arrears of rent. In view of this, the learned Settlement Commissioner was perfectly justified in holding that this ground could not come in the way of the transfer of the property to respondent No. 2.
12. It was strenuously contended that the appeal of the respondent No. 2 was time-barred and that the Additional Settlement Com--missioner had rightly dismissed the appeal. This contention also has no force. Admittedly, the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was not conveyed to respondent No. 2 and he came to know for the first time about this order on the 23rd May 1961: He, therefore, on coming to know of the facts of the rejection of NCH form, immediately filed an appeal.
13. In our opinion, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner was wrong in holding that the appeal vi as barred by time. He did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and did not consider the question whether it was a fit case for condonation of delay. The learned Settlement Commissioner was perfectly justified in condoning the delay on the ground that respondent No. 2 was unaware of the rejection of his NCH form and filed the appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner immediately after he learnt that his NCH form has been rejected. In these circumstances, the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was well within time.
14. In this case, the question does not arise whether a revision petition can be filed at any time it suits a party. In the present case the revision petition was filed within a reasonable time of the dismissal of the appeal and, therefore, it was quite competent and no objection can be raised on it. We would, therefore, express no opinion on the question whether under section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, where no time limit has been fixed for revision, the revision application can be maintained at any point of time.
15. Mr. A. H. Najafi, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that respondent No. 2 has not denied the relationship of landlord and tenants before the Rent Controller. That may be correct but he denied this relationship before the District Judge. In any case, in the circumstances of the present case, respondent No: 2 had filed NCH form which could not be rejected in his absence. He had a claim to the property in dispute and that should have been decided in accordance with law.
16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the Settlement Commissioner has disposed of the revision petition according to law. He has rightly come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was well within time, that he was not bound to clear the arrears of rent as he was an allottee and that the portion in his possession was an independent one and was entitled to its transfer. In this view of the matter, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.