1. The petitioner is an owner of Niamat Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Bahawalnagar. He was ordered to pay an insurance amount of Rs.d,246.57 from September 1965 to February 1966 regarding the war risks insurance under section 11 of the War Risks Ordinance 1965 (Ordinance XXVI of 1965) (which shall be hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). The petitioner did not pay this amount and a notice under section 20 of the Ordinance was served on the petitioner on 23-4-1971 and reminders dated 24-11-1971, 30-11-1971 and 15-12-1971 were issued. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued on 12-8-1972 and a final notice was sent on 29-8-1972. The demand notice is dated 19-4-1972 and he lodged an appeal on 19-4-1974 which was dismissed on 31-7-1974. This Constitutional Petition has been filed on 7-9-1974 for the annulment of the orders of the respondents dated 19-9-1972 and 31-7-1974 to be illegal, void, without lawful authority and inoperative against the petitioner.
2. The Factory was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1955-56 and a P.T.O. Was issued in the year 1959. The permanent transfer deed was obtained by the petitioner on 2-6-1973. It has been contended that in the year 1959, the petitioner was not an owner of the property in dispute and was not liable to pay the war risks insurance amount. Conversely, it has been represented that the petitioner was not paying any rent of this factory and he could be treated as an owner for the purpose of the payment of insurance amount.
2. 3.An "owner" has been defined in section 2 (j) of the Ordinance, which my be reproduced for the facility of reference:- "'Owner' in relation to a factory or building, when parts of the property insurable under this Ordinance in relation to such factory or building are owned by different persons, each such person in respect of the part owned by him."
3. 4.In Messrs Murree Hills Transport Company Ltd. v. Agha Ghulam Jilani (PLD 1970 Lahore 864), it has been adjudicated that the title in the property passes to the transferee only after the permanent transfer deed is granted and the property in question cannot be considered to have been transferred; until then, a P.T.O. Holder may be considered to be the transferee for certain limited purposes including the right to deal with the occupant on a premises as a statutory tenant. This precedent is indicative of the fact that a P.T.O. Holder is not an owner in stricts senso of the factory and, in this manner, the petitioner was not liable to pay the war risks insurance amount till he was granted aP.T.D. On 2-6-1973. I, therefore, annul the impugned orders and accept this writ petition.
4. I, however, make no order as to costs.