I propose to dispose of this Revision Petition alongwith the other connected Civil Revisions Nos.2991/D, 2992/1), 2993/1) and 2994/1) of 1996 through this single order as the common questions of law and facts are involved in all of them.
2. In this petition the order dated 29-10-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore has been assailed by the petitioner, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, upheld the order passed by the Civil Judge, Lahore on 17-6-1996, whereby he while exercising powers under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Rejected the plaint of the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims himself to be a tenant in Property No.SE-III-3- S, Roshan Market, Dewan Chand Street, 64 Brandreth Road, Lahore, for the last about 15 years. He was inducted into the possession of the said property on the basis of monthly rent i.e. Rs.400 per month, by its original owner, who subsequently sold it 'out to the National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited. It is also alleged that the said corporation acknowledged the petitioner as a tenant and he has been paying monthly rent regularly till June, 1992 but thereafter he failed to contact the said corporation, which went under liquidation. The petitioner has further submitted that the suit property was sold out by the Punjab Cooperative Board/respondent No.2 to Muhammad Sharif/respondent No. 1, who threatened him for its eviction forcibly and ultimately the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore/respondent No.3 was directed to arrange for the delivery of possession of the disputed property to respondent No. 1. The petitioner prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing him illegally, forcibly and otherwise than due course of law. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Was also submitted by the petitioner. The suit was contested by respondent No.2 who submitted written statement and raised preliminary objections. He also filed a separate application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint, on the ground that in view of section 14 of the Act No.1 of 1993, Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Dissolution Act, 1993 the plaint was liable to rejection.
4. The learned Civil Judge rejected the plaint of the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under sections 11 and 17 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Dissolution Act, 1993 vide order dated 17-6-1996. Against which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 29-10-1996 by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Hence the present revision petition:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was tenant under the defunct corporation and by operation of law he is entitle to maintain his possession on the same terms and conditions of the tenancy although the ownership of the property has undergone changes.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel and gone through the relevant provisions of law. Section 3 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Dissolution Act, 1993 provides as under:--- "The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment or decision of any Court or in any agreement, contract or instrument. "
The abovesaid provision excludes the applicability of all other laws.
7. Similarly under section 7 of the said Act, all the powers in relation to the properties of defunct societies were entrusted to the Cooperatives Board. The relevant provisions of section 7 of the Act is reproduced below:--- "A Cooperatives Board when appointed as a Liquidator under this Act shall have all the powers exercisable by a Liquidator under the Co--operative Societies Act, 1925 and in addition to that shall have the power to---
(a) verify the claims already filed with the Commission; entertain and dispose of objections against the acceptance or rejection thereof and also entertain claims, in case, reasonable cause is shown for not filing the same earlier;
(b) unearth and proceed against any concealed or hidden property of an Undesirable Cooperative Society, whether in the name of any Director, Officer, agent or any of the members of their families or in the name of any other person, body, company or firm acquired or purchased by using or diverting the funds of such a society;
(c) determine the assets and liabilities of an Undesirable Cooperative Society and those of its Promoters, Directors, Officers and Agents and of the past members of its committees of management;
(d) fix and pay to any person on whose information to a Cooperatives Board any hidden assets of an Undesirable Cooperative Society are retrieved, a compensation not exceeding fifteen per cent.
Of the value of such assets;
(e) cancel all agreements entered into by an Undesirable Cooperative Society or its previous managements or Directors, Officers or Agents which in the opinion of the Cooperatives Board, are mala fide and against the interest of such a society or the members thereof; Subsection (e) of the section 7 of the Act is fully applicable in the instant case.
8. Section 14 of the Act also provides as under:--- "Any person having any claim against an Undesirable Cooperative Society or any right over any property or assets of such society or against its Directors, Officers or Agents, whether on the basis of any agreement, sale, transfer or otherwise, may, within thirty days of the appointment of a Liquidator or within a reasonable time allowed by, the Cooperative Judge submit his claim before the Liquidator."
The provisions referred to above fully support the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
9. The petitioner instead of filing an application before the Liquidation Board in relation to his claim of tenancy, has instituted a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge. The suit of the petitioner was clearly barred under sections 7 and 14 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Dissolution Act, 1993. The petitioner being a tenant under the defunct corporation could only make an application before the Liquidation Board within the specified period. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any such application with the Liquidation Board and the property, admittedly having been taken-over by the Liquidation Board, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, to pass any decree of permanent injunction against the respondent No.2.
10. The rejection of the plaint by the Courts below does not suffer from any legal error. The impugned order has been correctly passed by the learned Additional District Judge keeping in view the provisions of the Punjab, Undesirable Cooperative Societies Dissolution Act, 1993 and calls for no interference. Hence the revision petition, for the reason stated above, is dismissed in limine alongwith the other connected revision petitions.