1. WAH EDUDDIN AHMAD, J.---The dispute in this matter is in res--pect of an evacuee residential house known as Kothi Sundar Niwas, situated at Dinga, District Gujrat, bearing No. 41/2. It was initially allotted to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and Muhammad Hussain their real brother, predecessor- in-interest of petitioners Nos. 3 to 7 in the year 1948. Respondent No. 1 who is the brother-in law of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, was accommodated in the upper-storey of the house. On the 3rd September 1952, he secured allotment of four rooms out of the residential accommoda--tion on the first floor from the Deputy Rehabilitation Commis--sioner. This order was modified by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 20th February 1954 with the result that one room out of four rooms earlier allotted, was excluded from his allotment. The matter was agitated by the respondent and the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner accepted his appeal on the 10th April 1954 and restored the allotment of four rooms initially made to him. The petitioners filed revision petition which was accepted by the Rehabilitation Commis--sioner on the 49th August 1954 and the allotment of three rooms out of the residential accommodation of the first floor was maintained.
2. With the advent of the Settlement era, the petitioner applied fur the transfer of the whole house on a regular form. Respon--dent No. 1 also applied for transfer of property in his possession. Two orders were passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner; one on the 14th January 1960 and the other on the 4th July 1960.
3. Under the first order, the entire house was transferred to respon--dent No. 1. By the second order, the entire house was transferred to the petitioners, Two appeals were filed; one by the petitioners and the other by respondent No. 1 before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner by order dated the 27th June 1964, transferred the portion in possession of respondent No. 1 to him and the remaining portion of the house was given to the petitioners. There was controversy between the parties about the portion in possession of respondent No. 1. In this connection, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner observed as under:- "There has, however, been some controversy regarding the exact accommodation in possession of the appellant. He submits that he is in possession of the entire upper-storey whereas the respondent submits that he is in occupation of simply one room of the upper storey. Anyhow, on principle, it is just and reasonable that whatever accommodation is in possession of the appellant should be transferred to him and rest of the house be given to the respondent. It is ordered accord--ingly.
4. Three revision petitions were filed against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The learned Settlement Commissioner, by order dated the 31st May 1905, transferred the entire house to the petitioners.
5. Respondent No. 1 challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 1397-R of 1965, which was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore. The respondent challenged this order in L. P. A. No. 333 of 1965, which was accepted by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, by order dated the 6th July 1972. The order of the Settlement Commissioner, has been set aside and that of the Additional Settlement Commissioner has been restored. As a result of this, three rooms on the first floor of the house in question have been transferred to respondent No. 1. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against this order.
6. Mian Saeed-ur-Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the High Court was not competent to restore the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The case should have been remanded back to the Settlement Commissioner for disposal on merits. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us because respondent No. 1, who is a non claimant is in possession of three rooms on the first floor of the house in dispute. The Additional Settlement Commissioner has transferred these rooms to him. In the circumstances of the present case, the High Court having come to the conclusion that the property was divisible was perfectly justified in maintaining the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
7. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the peti--tioners that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had not consciously divided the property in dispute and the order of the Settlement Commissioner was just and proper in the circumstances of the case. The contention of the learned counsel is without sub--stance. The very fact that the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner held that respondent No. 1 was in independent possession of the portion of property in dispute and that portion should be transferred to him clearly shows that he has applied his mind to the facts of the present case and has come to the conclu--sion that the property in dispute is divisible. In our opinion, the High Court's conclusion on this point is correct and calls for no interference. We do not consider it as fit case for interference as substantial justice has been done between the parties.
8. The petition is dismissed.