1. ' HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J.---This Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is directed among others against Assistant Director of Lands, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (K.M.C.), D-Division and Sub-Registrar T-Division, Karachi. The former in supersession of lease deed granted by KMC to one Hussain Khan in respect of property bearing No,75/1-A, Area Liaquatabad, Karachi had granted and got registered another lease deed in favour of respondent No, 1 namely Abdul Hafeez without any show-cause notice to the former or getting the earlier lease cancelled. The petitioner is Mst. Ghafooran Bi, the widow of the said Hussain Khan who died on 10-7-1986 leaving behind him besides the petitioner, two sons and two daughters, of whom the petitioner is also the attorney.
2. ' The above named property is a double-storyed building on 60 square yards of land and consists of two shops and two rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the rust floor with necessary attachments. According to the petitioner the said two shops were in possession of the deceased whereas two rooms on ground floor and two rooms on the first floor were let out by the petitioner to respondent No, 4, namely, Chaudhry Naseer Ahmed, a Supervisor in Income Tax Department against whom the deceased had filed an ejectment Case No, 2190/89 (Old) and No, 81/1988 (New) in the Court of IlIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Central Karachi. In the said proceedings, respondent No, 1 namely Abdul Hafeez moved an application for being impleaded as necessary party as he had purchased the property in question from the deceased for Rs,1,75,000 by an agreement of sale dated 23-4-1983 in pursuance whereof he obtained legal possession thereof and further he obtained physical possession of the said four rooms let out to the respondent No,4 from him. Subsequently on 6-3-1989 KM.C. Had granted to him the lease of the house by a Registered Lease Deed.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the alleged lease granted to the respondent No,1 on a number of grounds. Firstly, the so-called agreement of sale dated 23-4-1983 is a forged document as it was never executed by the deceased Hussain Khan who did not even mention the name of respondent No,1 in his ejectment application. Secondly, the alleged sale was in respect of immovable property requiring proper affixation of stamps under Stamp Act and registration under section 17 of the Registration Act. Thirdly, K.M.C. Could not have granted a lease in respect of the property to respondent No,1 unless the earlier registered lease deed was firstly cancelled and lastly no show-cause notice was issued by the K.M.C. Before the alleged grant of lease of the property to the respondent No,4.
4. ' Mr. Yasin Kiyani, learned counsel for respondent No, 2 fully supports the petitioner conceding that a Registered Valid Lease as aforesaid was granted to the deceased on 28-11-1975 but no show- cause notice was sent to the petitioner or other L.Rs, of the said deceased before the grant of subsequent lease to the respondent No,1. In fact S.M. Asif, Assistant Director, K.M.C. In para.7 of counter-affidavit states that the subsequent lease in favour of respondent No, 1 "seems to have been executed improperly in violation of rules and regulations and hence liable to be cancelled".
5. No explanation however was given by Mr. Kayani as to why in the face of prior registered lease in favour of the deceased another lease was executed by KM.C. In favour of respondent No,1. Here reference may be made that under clause (2) of lease dated 2411-1975 granted to the deceased it was liable to be cancelled if he would have failed to complete the building within a period of three years or under clause (9) if he had defaulted in the payment of any dues etc. Under the lease or committed breach of any of the terms of the lease in which case a clear 30 days registered notice was required to be served on him. Admittedly there was no violation of clause (2) nor any notice as contemplated under clause (9) was served by K.M.C. Upon the petitioner. There was also no dispute in terms of clause 13 between the deceased or his legal representatives and K.M.C. Which could be referred to the arbitration of the Chairman, K.M.C. Or his nominee.
6. The stand taken by the respondent No,1 is somewhat dubious. While on one hand learned counsel for respondent No, 1 has vigorously urged that the house in question was purchased by him from the deceased vide agreement of sale dated 23-4-1983 (Annexure 'A') for a sum of Rs,1,75,000 but on the other hand his plea was that the lease in favour of the deceased was bogus otherwise K.M.C.
7. Would not have granted him lease on the basis of alleged agreement of sale he had with the deceased.
8. ' The facts and circumstances of the case establish beyond doubt that the respondent No,1 could not have obtained subsequent lease in his favour without the connivance of concerned officers in K.M.C. This position is candidly admitted by Mr. Yasin Kayani learned counsel for K.M.C. Besides there is nothing to show that the earlier lease granted by KM.C. In favour of the said deceased has been cancelled. Not even a show-cause notice was issued by KM.C. To the deceased before the grant of the fresh lease in favour of the respondent No,1. In the circumstances of the case, the lease granted by KM.C. In favour of the respondent No, 1 shall not purport to supersede or nullify the earlier lease granted by KM.C. In favour of the deceased which now devolves jointly on the petitioners. We will not, however, enter into any controversy as to whether the alleged agreement of sale was executed by the deceased or not and if it is specifically enforceable against the petitioner and other heirs of the deceased.
9. ' With these reasons we allow the petition with costs.