SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the relationship of tenant and landlord was established between the appellant and respondents.
2. The facts of the case disclose that a plot measuring 5,743 sq.Ft. Which was earlier evacuee in nature was put to public auction and purchased by one Mir Ahmad Shah on 22-2-1960 P.T.O. Of which was issued to him on 26-4-1960. It was purchased by one Muhammad Ishaq by registered deed dated 31-10-1963 and from him by registered deed on 24-4-1974 by the respondents. The respondents wanted to raise a commercial property on the plot and sought the eviction of the occupants of the plot and successfully obtained it either by negotiation or filing ejectment applications. The appellant happened to be one of the occupants on about 1,200 sq.Ft. Of land over which Katcha construction existed. His claim was that he was occupying it under one Abdul Wahid who had a paramount title in it and that the respondents could not be his landlords. We find additionally, from the record, that that Abdul Wahid had litigation with the auction-purchaser of the plot but was unsuccessful in the litigation. Such being the factual position, the relationship of landlord and tenant would be established between the transferee or the respondents and the appellant on the strength of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (since repealed). The Rent Controller has affirmed this position and the High Court has rejected appeal against it.
3. Even at the hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents made it clear that throughout the proceedings the respondents had been offering Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand) only to rehabilitate the appellant and his wife, who are issueless, ex gratia, apart from the merits of the case entitling them to the possession but the appellant has been obstinately refusing it. We asked the learned counsel representing the appellant to negotiate with the appellant and his wife and ascertain the position. He has confirmed that they are not still willing and ready to accept any amount though the wife is more receptively understanding whatever be the decision of the Court.
4. So far as the legal aspect of the case is concerned, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal must fail and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed, the order of eviction against the appellant will remain intact. However, in view of the offer made by the learned counsel for the respondents, by which he stands, and has shown readiness to deposit the amount of Rs.2,00,000 ex gratia, by tomorrow, we direct that the possession of the property-be handed over by the appellant to the respondents as and when deposit of Rs.2,00,000 is made in the account of the Officer Incharge of the Supreme Court Branch Registry, Quetta, for the benefit of its monthly income in favour of the appellant and his wife operating the account "either or". The amount be deposited within two days in the National Development Finance Corporation or Bankers Equity account, whichever is convenient and more beneficial to the appellant. This part of the order is passed in view of ex gratia offer made by the respondents and the power possessed by the Court under Article 187 (1) of the Constitution. The Officer Incharge of the Supreme Court Branch Registry shall ensure its proper observance.