' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 3-4-1986 which he has received from respondent No,2 calling upon him to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of shop/office No,16 situated at P.N. Fleet Club, Iqbal Shaheed Road, Karachi. The petitioner has been further threatened with action under the provisions of the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965, hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance.".
2. The various documents, copies of which have been filed alongwith the present petition, indicate that the petitioner had been allotted the said shop/office on 16-7-1963. The allotment order which has been filed as Annexure 'A' to the petition shows that the petitioner had been granted leave and licence to occupy and use the shop for a period of one year. Thereafter, the petitioner enjoyed peaceful possession of the said shop/office until by a letter dated 8-10-1983 the petitioner was informed that his licence had expired and he had to execute a fresh agreement with respondent No,2 before 16-10-1983. Although the case of the petitioner is that he was a tenant of the respondents and in this regard reliance has been placed by the petitioner on a letter, dated 14-10- 1969 informing him that the respondents had decided to accept the licensees as tenants and inviting him to execute a lease agreement in this regard but it appears that no such agreement was executed by the petitioner with the respondents with the result that he continued to be a licensee in respect of the said premises. It also appears that respondent No,2 had enhanced the rent/licence fee for the premises to Rs,600 per month in regard to which the petitioner lodged a protest with the said respondent vide his two letters dated 25-6-1985 and 22-9-1985 respectively but thereafter the petitioner received a notice dated 3-4-1986 which has now been impugned in this petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Niazi A. Khaliq, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Qazi Mehfooz Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Section 2(e) of the Ordinance defines unauthorized occupant as follows:--- "(a) 'unauthorised occupant' means a person who is in occupation of any land or building without the express permission or authority of the Central Government and includes--
(i) a person inducted into any land or building by the lessee or licensee thereof; and
(ii) every member of the lessee's or licensee's family who remains in occupation of any land or building after the determination of the lease or licence in respect of the same."
' As the petitioner was a licensee and his lease had evidently expired after the expiry of a year after 16-7-1963 according to the original letter of allotment he continued to be in occupation of the premises with the permission of the respondents. The respondents clearly had authority under the law to terminate the licence of the petitioner as and when they required and this authority was exercised by them through the notice dated 3-4-1986. Section 3 of the Ordinance empowers the Federal Government or Officers acting thereunder to evict authorised occupants of the property belonging to the Federal Government after the expiry of the term of their lease or licence and it appears that under such provisions of the Ordinance that the impugned notice was purportedly issued to the petitioner. It is pertinent to reproduce section 3 of the Ordinance which provides as follows:-- "3. Eviction of outgoing lessees on licensees from land or building.--If, on the expiry, whether before or after the commencement of this ' Ordinance, of the period of any lease or licence in respect of any land or building of which the Central Government is the lessor or licensor or on the determination of such lease or licence on the ground of breach of any covenant imposing an obligation on the lessee or licensee to give up possession of the demised land or building required for any public purpose, the lessee or licensee refused or failed, or refuses or fails, to vacate that land or building and put the Central Government into possession of the same, any officer authorized by the Central Government in this behalf may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, at any time, enter upon the demised land or building and recover, vacant possession of that land or building by evicting the lessee or licensee and may also demolish and remove the structures, if any, erected or built thereon by the lessee or licensee: ' Provided that such officer shall, before demolishing and removing any structures under this section, issue a notice to the lessee or licensee calling upon him to remove such structure within the period specified in the notice."
Although we are convinced that the respondents were clearly authorised to issue the impugned licence to the petitioner but apart from the same we would like to point out that no Constitutional petition is maintainable for enforcing any contractual obligations between the parties. If any reference to any authority is needed, the same may be made to the case of The Chandpur Mills Ltd. v. District Magistrate, Tippers and the Province of East Pakistan PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 267 and Ikramul Haq v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1985 (W.P.) Lah.
365. Reference in this respect may also be made to an unreported decision of this Court in C.P.
No,D-299/87 Mrs. Qaiser Iqbal v. M.S. Chaudhary and others). Incidentally this was the Bench which decided the last-mentioned case. We are, therefore, of the clear view that the present petition in no case is maintainable against the respondents. Even otherwise as we have just pointed out, the action of the respondents does not appear to be without lawful authority.
5. In the result, we find no force in this petition and the same isD dismissed. C.MA. No,3026/91 which is also fixed for hearing alongwith the present petition, has become infructuous and the same is also dismissed. The respondents would, however, return the goods of the petitioner if the same have been seized by them.