' The case made out by applicant Najmuddin in his revision petition is that his father and respondent Laiq Ahmed were running a Musafir Khana in partnership known as Nabi Hotel on the first floor of the building situated on the Station Road Hyderabad. The respondent was, however, a sleeping partner whereas the applicant's father was the managing partner who was in possession of the premises and running the business. The partnership was dissolved in 1982 whereafter respondent Laiq Ahmed claimed share in the building also (the first floor premises where the Musafir Khana was located). Faced with this situation Abdul Qadir (respondent's father) filed a declaratory Suit No,220 of 1982 against respondent Laiq Ahmed and others in the Court of IIIrd Extra Joint Civil Judge, Hyderabad, on 7-6-1982 along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Upon which order to maintain status quo was issued. At this stage, learned S.D.M. Hyderabad, on information received by him, ordered 145, Cr.P.C. Proceedings in respect of the 1st Floor premises where the Musafir Khana was located and the said premises were sealed. Respondent Laiq Ahmed felt aggrieved from 145, Cr.P.C. Proceedings and filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,90 of 1982 in the High Court at Circuit Bench at Hyderabad and the High Court, through a consent order, dated 18-11-1982, quashed the 145, Cr.P.C. Proceedings and held them to be unlawful in view of the pending civil A suit. After this, possession of the premises was to be delivered to the person from whom it was taken when the premises were sealed. Per Mashirnama of the sealing of the premises, the police had obtained possession from respondent Laiq Ahmed but applicant Najmuddin claimed that the police had taken possession from him. (It is not explained how applicant has come in the picture since till this stage his father Abdul Qadir was in the picture). As such, this Court, while passing the consent order of 18-11-1982 directed learned S.D.M., Hyderabad to hold inquiry for determining as to who was in possession at the time of sealing of the premises and to deliver possession to such person. The applicant had not faith in S.D.M., Hyderabad and moved transfer application in High Court Circuit (Transfer Application No,2 of 1983) which was rejected on 19-6-1983 but on further appeal Honourable Supreme Court vide its order, dated 21-8-1983 granted the Transfer Application and transferred the enquiry to D.M., Hyderabad who was also authorised to further transfer it, if deemed necessary, and who transferred the said enquiry to Additional Deputy Commissioner and A.D.M.-I, Hyderabad who, eventually, held the enquiry and vide impugned order, dated 24-8-1987 came to the conclusion that police had obtained possession from respondent Laiq Ahmed and ordered that the possession of the first floor premises he delivered to him.
Applicant Najmuddin has, obviously, felt aggrieved from this order and has filed this revision petition under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. However, no prayer is made and no relief sought in the revision petition. It is contended that learned Additional Deputy Commissioner misconducted himself and did not properly appreciate the evidence adduced before him in the enquiry and came to a wrong conclusion.
2. Learned counsel of the parties have been heard.
3. At the very outset, Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, Advocate, learned counsel of the respondent, contested the aintainability of this petition in this Court on the ground that the applicant should have first approached the Court of Session and he relied upon Abdul Wahid v. Muhammad Shall PLD 1978 Quetta 66. This judgment strongly deprecates the practice of filing revision petitions directly in the High Court but since it was admitted as long ago as 30-8-1987, I do not consider it desirable to reject it on this ground and would proceed to decide it on merits.
4. Learned counsel of the applicant referred to the civil suit and status quoorder granted therein but civil suit was of no relevance to determine the possession of the either party over the premises in dispute. Learned Additional Deputy Commissioner has discussed the evidence produced before him by the parties and came to the conclusion that on the date when the premises were sealed by the police the same were in possession of respondent Laiq Ahmed and that applicant Najmuddin was employed at the Musafir Khana as an accountant. The documentary evidence relied upon by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner consists of license of the Musfir Khana which was in the name of respondent Laiq Ahmed, the Income-tax record where applicant Najmuddin was shown as accountant, the various agreements between Shahbir Ahmed, father of respondent Laiq Ahmed and applicant's father Abdul Qadir showing that the premises were handed over by Abdul Qadir to Shabbir Ahmed for valuable consideration. Applicant Najmuddin had signed these agreements as a marginal witness. Another agreement (Exh.4-B) showed that Abdul Qadir was not in a position to repay the loan or valuable consideration to Shabbir Ahmed and agreed to let the possession of the premises remain with Shabbir Ahmed. As a result, subsequent renewal of the licence of the Musafir Khana was affected in the name of Shabbir Ahmed's son Laiq Ahmed. Income-tax record further showed that Nabi Hotel on the ground floor of the building (which is run by applicant Najumuddin) is quite a different entity and files separate income-tax returns from the Naeem Musafir Khana which was run and managed by Shabbir Ahmed and his son Laiq Ahmed. Then there is another agreement Exh.4-C showing that the entire first floor of the building was transferred by Abdul Qadir to Laiq Ahmed for a further consideration of Rs,1,03,000. Then there was an affidavit (Exh.4-D) of applicant's father Abdul Qadir giving his no-objection to transfer of the lease by Hyderabad Municipal Corporation from his name to the name of respondent Laiq Ahmed. The same affidavit also gives his consent for the transfer of the licence of Musafir Khana in favour of respondent Laiq Ahmed. No evidence showing possession of applicant Najmuddin on the date of sealing of the premises, or even remotely suggesting such possession was produced by applicant Najmuddin before learned Additional Deputy Commissioner who also made spot inspection of the premises. I find nothing to suggest that learned Additional Deputy Commissioner misconducted himself or misread or misconstrued the evidence. The claim of the applicant that at the time of spot inspection by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, almirahs and cupboards could not be opened by the keys produced by respondent Laiq Ahmed but were opened by the keys produced by him, (Najumuddin) is not borne out by any evidence on record. There appears to be no force in the allegation of the applicant that respondent Laiq Ahmed had influence with the local police of Hyderabad and has influenced it as well as learned S.D.M. Hyderabad who instituted 145, Cr.P.C.
Proceedings in respect of the premises in dispute. In fact, 145, Cr.P.C. Proceedings were not liked by respondent Laiq Ahmed and he filed quashment proceedings in this Court. This rather shows that respondent Laiq Ahmed has no influence whatsoever with either the Hyderabad Police or with learned S.D.M. The respondent lives at Karachi whereas the applicant not only lives at Hyderabad but near the disputed premises and even manages a hotel on the ground floor of the disputed premises and if at all anyone can have any influence at Hyderabad, it can only be the applicant but I am satisfied that the local police as well as learned S.D.M. And learned Additional Deputy Commissioner acted impartially and strictly to the best of their judgment and available evidence.
As a result, I find no force in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. Order, dated 24th August, 1987 passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner is maintained and may be now complied with.