1. ' NAIMUDDIN, J.--Muhammad Yousaf, the appellant is a displaced person and Ehsan Ali the respondent 4 is a claimant. Muhammad Yousaf was temporary allottee of shop No,27-C, Grain Market, Haroonabad, which is in dispute. Ehsan Ali entered into a partnership with Muhammad Yousaf and they carried on the business in the shop in the name of Ehsan Ali and Muhammad Yousaf.
2. ' In 1959, Muhammad Yousaf applied for transfer of the shop on the basis of temporary allotment and possession. On 3-6-1959 Ehsan All also applied on his C.S. Form for transfer of the same shop on the basis of possession of the shop being the partner in business with Muhammad Yousaf. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, however, transferred the shop to Muhammad Yousaf by the order, dated 12th December, 1959.
3. ' Aggrieved by the order Ehsan Ali preferred an appeal with the Additional Settlement Commissioner who partly accepted the same on 24th December, 1960, on the ground that Ehsan Ali being a partner in business was also in constructive possession of the shop jointly with Muhammad Yousaf and finding the shop divisible on the basis of local inspection ordered a vertical division of the shop into two shops and transferred one to Muhammad Yousaf and the other to Ehsan Ali. It was argued before the Additional Settlement Commissioner on behalf of Muhammad Yousaf that he was in possession and Ehsan Ali was not in possession. After considering a number of documents produced on behalf of the respondent 4 he came to the conclusion that he was in constructive possession of the shop. In this connection he particularly referred to the letter dated 23-5-1957, whereby Muhammad Yousaf informed Ehsan Ali that he would have no objection in case he (Ehsan Ali) decided to depute somebody to sit in the premises in his absence while away from Haroonabad on employment. He also found that the arrangement between the parties was such that Ehsan Ali's interest extended to having the actual possession of the shop, and the mere fact that Ehsan Ali did not himself exercise the power of actually sitting at the shop could not indicate that he was not in possession of the shop.
4. ' By this order both the parties were aggrieved and they filed separate revision petitions before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan and Bahawalpur Division. Before the Commissioner both the parties claimed to be in actual and physical possession of the premises.
5. After discussing the arguments he affirmed the finding of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and also upheld the partition of the shop for the same reasons as prevailed with the Additional Settlement Commissioner. He, however, expressed the view that it would have been better if the shop had been transferred jointly to both the parties as they had been carrying on business jointly in the shop for several years.
6. ' This led Muhammad Yousaf to file second revision before S.Ijaz Hussain Shah, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, with the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed by the order dated 28-9-1978.
7. ' The orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and the Settlement Commissioner and the last order dated 28-9-78 were challenged by Muhammad Yousaf in writ petition No,313-R of 1978/BWP which was also dismissed. Before the High Court it was contended that Ehsan Ali was merely a licensee and on the strength of partnership business he could not claim possession over the shop but in view of the findings of the Settlement Authorities that the respondent was in possession of the shop the contention was rejected and one more reason which weighed with the High Court in dismissing the writ petition was that the Settlement Authorities had found the shop divisible and divided the same each portion being treated as an independent shop for the purpose of section 2(12) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
8. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has not questioned the findings of the Settlement Authorities upheld by the High Court that the shop was divisible and accordingly dividing the shop. On this ground alone the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He, however, submitted that the parties were doing business in partnership but Muhammad Yousaf was the allottee of the shop, and therefore, Ehsan Ali could not be deemed to be in possession of the shop. He relied on Muhammad Sadiq v. Mir Ajam Khan etc. (1978 SCMR 214). Now, firstly, when Muhammad Yousaf entered into a partnership with Ehsan Ali and jointly carried on business with him, he did not make any reservation that the possession of the shop would remain exclusively with him and that Ehsan Ali was only partner in business without any interest in the premises. No partnership deed or other evidence was produced in support of the claim that he was in exclusive possession of the shop. On the contrary, there is evidence on original record that Ehsan Ali's interest was being looked after by his son and nephew when he himself was in service, and after leaving the service was working as partner in the shop. The case cited by the learned counsel is distinguishable as in that case it was held that in case of contest between the allottee and non-claimant under whom the claimant/non-allottee he in possession, preference was to be given to person in undisputed possession, and that person in such a contest would be allottee under whom claimant enjoys possession of the property as against the outsider. In that case the Settlement Authorities on the facts of that case found that the petitioner's partnership in business with the respondent, who was an allottee of the shop, did not give him an independent status as to the possession of the shop, and therefore, the Supreme Court held that he was a licensee. In the present case, there is no doubt, that the appellant was an allottee but the findings of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the higher Settlement Authorities based on documentary evidence are that both the parties being partner in business were in possession of the shop, which also finds some support from the fact that the parties were carrying on partnership business in their joint names.
9. We may mention that Ehsan All also had claimed whole shop in the proceedings upto this Court but had failed. In any case, the Settlement Authorities found the shop divisible and divided the same into two and transferred one each to each party. The order in the circumstances of this case, is a just order.
10. ' This appeal, therefore, has no merits and accordingly it is dismissed with no order as to costs.