' SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, J.--Petitioner Hikmat Khan claims to be the resident/occupant of Quarter No, H.K.-483, Block-29, Keamari Village, Karachi and his grievance is that Respondent No,3 (K.P.T.) wants to eject him from the said quarter on the basis of an order dated 21-11-1983 passed by Assistant Commissioner/S.D., Harbour and the Authorised Officer under Port Authorities Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1962, against one Qabool Shah in proceedings under section 4(1)(6) and (2) of the said Ordinance even though the entire area of Blocks 1 to 31 is no longer in the administrative charge of the KPT which has leased it to Babul Islam Cooperative Housing Society in 1969 for a 99-year period through a registered lease-deed. The petitioner preferred an appeal before District Judge Karachi (Civil Appeal No,25/83) under section 5 of the said Ordinance but the said appeal was dismissed in limine on 19th January 1984. Finding no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner came before this Court in this Constitutional Petition under Article 9 of the Provincial Constitutional Order, 1981. His contention is, firstly, that the K.P.T. Having leased out the land for 99-year period to Babul Islam Co-operative Housing Society, no proceedings could be instituted under the above-mentioned Ordinance against anybody in respect of any land or building which is part of the Ind so leased to the Housing Society and, secondly, the proceedings were bad as they were instituted against Qabool Shah and not against him who was the person occupation.
2. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and going through the ocuments placed on record on 1042-1990, we dismissed this petition by a short order. Reason for the dismissal of the petition are given in this judgment.
3. The petitioner has placed no document on record to show that he was in occupation of the quarter before filing of the appeal under section 5 of the Ordinance. Copy of his memo. Of appeal has not been placed on record which could have revealed his version as to how and when he came into possession of his quarter. At any rate, order dated 19-1-1984 of learned District and Sessions Judge Karachi shows that the appeal was filed on 13-1-1984 and this date appears a be the very first date from which the possession of the petitioner of the quarter in question can be said with certainty. It is, therefore, not possible for us to subscribe to the view that proceedings before the Authorized Officer under Section 3 (3) of the Ordinance were fraudulently instituted against a fictitious person.
4. KPT in its counter-affidavit states that Qabool Shah was their employee as a gangman in Public Works Section of their Engineering Department and he was allotted this quarter vide allotment order dated 14th June 1968 (Annexure 'A' of their counter-affidavit). Subsequently, his services were terminated w,e,f. 16-9-1979 due to unauthorizd absence from duty. Letter of termination dated 4-1- 1979 Annexure 'B' to the counter-affidavit. Immediately thereafter, complaint under section 3 (3) of the Ordinance was filed in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Harbour who was the Authorized Officer under the Ordinance. As such, the proceedings before the Authorised Officer were bona fide and again the right person. There is nothing for us to believe that the petitioner was in occupation of the quarter in 1979 when the said proceedings were instituted. In, fact, the order of Authority shows that two persons Amir Din or Imranuddin and Nasir Mohammad were found by the process-server to be in actual possession when notice of the proceedings was sought to be served on Qabool Shah and one of them, Imranuddin (or Amir Din), even appeared before the Authority on 26-9-1983 and informed the Court that he was living in the Quarter and requested for one month's time to vacate the quarter which time was given but neither he nor Qabool Shah appeared before the Authority whereafter they were proceeded against ex parte. It was apparently after this that the petitioner came into possession of the quarter. In our view, proceedings having been validly instituted against Qabool Shah and the petitioner having occupied the premises later, the said proceedings could be continued and it was not necessary to draw fresh proceedings against the petitioner who is liable to be rejected through the execution of the order against Qabool Shah. We find no illegality in the order dated 21st November, 1983, passed by the Authorised Officer and the appeal filed against it being barred by time, learned District and I Sessions Judge rightly dismissed it vide order dated 19-1-1984.
5. There is no force in the contention that the land having been leased to a Cooperative Housing Society, KPT was divested of all rights in the land and as such the Ordinance does not apply to it. It may be observed here that the registered document is not a lease but an agreement to grant a lease and till such time lease is granted the Housing Society has been given the right to enter upon the land to perform the agreement. Then vide clause 3 o the registered document (Annexure to the counter-affidavit) KPT undertook to pay Rs,25 by way of cartage expenses to those of its employees who were in occupation of the quarters and who were to be shifted from the quarters.
As such, KPT had not divested itself of the administrative control of such quarters. The petitions does not get any help from the letter dated 9-4-1970 of the Additional Estate Officer, KPT, adressed to the Housing Society. In the present case, action had been taken by KPT against Qabool Shah and, as observed earlier, the petitioner appeared on the scene for the first time when he filed the appeal before the learned District Judge. No illegality had been committed by KPT in taking appropriate action against Qabool Shah, an ex-employee of KPT.
6. Lastly, it was argued that the petitioner had a right to become a member of the said Housing Society and then retain possession of the quarter. It was submitted that petitioner's application seeking member-ship of the Housing Society was pending before the Society and, in the circumstances, the Society may be asked to enrol the petitioner as a member of the Society. The Society is not a respondent in this petition. No relief has been claimed in this petition for a direction to the Society to enrol the petitioner as a member of the Society. In the circumstances, no relief in this regard can be granted to the petitioner in this Constitutional petition.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we were of the view that the orders of the Authorised Officer and of the learned District and Sessions Judge were passed with jurisdiction and in accordance with law. The petition was accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.
8. If the petitioner has any right to remain in possession of the said quarter or to become a member of Babul Islam Co-operative Housing Society and to the allotment of the quarter by the Society, the petitioner is free to seek relief from a Civil Court if available under the law. To enable the petitioner to seek such relief, in the special circumstances of this case, it is directed that the impugned orders of his ejectment shall, not be executed till 10-11-1991.