1. ' According to the petitioner, the Administrator Abandoned Properties Organisation, respondent No,1, in relation to Property bearing No,37-C, 5th Street, Phase I, D.H.A. Karachi, entered into a tenancy agreement with her husband (A.Q. Najmi) on 30-3-1991, the monthly agreed rent being Rs,3,000. The relationship continued but when rent for the months of May and June, 1995 was sent through a pay order, such was refused. The petitioner, therefore, filed Miscellaneous Rent Case No,73 of 1995 and started depositing rents with the Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment Board, Karachi. Meanwhile, A.Q. Najmi fell sick and went abroad for treatment. However, the petitioner. In January, 1996, received a letter, dated 9-1-1996 from the respondent No,2 (Deputy Administrator) through which the property was required to be vacated within 15 days, such letter for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereinbelow:--- "You are hereby given notice that you are in illegal possession of the abovementioned premises, which is an abandoned property. These premises were in occupancy of M/s. Singer Ltd., whose tenancy was terminated by an order, dated 30-9-1991 and in the same order you were granted the tenancy of the abovementioned premises. Against this order M/s. Singer filed Constitutional Petition No,D-1428 of 1991. You were also party in that petition. That order was declared to have been passed without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. Your counsel Mr. Javed Siddiqui was also present there and he does not oppose.
2. ' As per orders of the Hon'ble High Court M/s. Singer continued to be the tenant of abovementioned premises, so an order granting you tenancy, is not in accordance with law, and was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. In these circumstances we cannot accept any rent from you.
3. ' You are further given notice to vacate the abovementioned premises within fifteen days of service of this notice otherwise we will be constrained to take action against you under the Abandoned Properties (Management) Act XX of 1975."
4. ' This led to a legal notice from the side of the petitioner and reply thereto, dated 12-3-1996. This petition was filed on 28-3-1996 with the following prayers;--- "Prayers:--: ' It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this honourable Court may be pleased to pass an Order as under:---
(i) to declare the impugned Notices, dated 9th January, 1996 and 12th March, 1996 as illegal and without lawful authority;
(ii) to declare that the respondent No,2 cannot terminate the tenancy of petitioner under the provision of Abandoned Properties Act, 1975;
(iii) to direct the respondents not to act in any manner contradictory to the vested tenancy rights of the petitioner in respect of the premises;
(iv) any other relief(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper."
5. ' Meanwhile, counter-affidavit and rejoinder have been exchanged.
6. ' Hearing the learned counsel on 3-10-1996, we had, through a short order, dismissed this petition as well as the miscellaneous application in it. Herein are recorded reasons for the order.
7. ' Examining the controversy we found that, admittedly, the property in these proceedings is an abandoned property having been duly notified under the Abandoned Properties Act, 1975. To start with M/s. ' ' Singer (Pak.) Limited were tenants of the Abandoned Properties Organisation whereas A.Q. Najmi occupied the property as a licensee of the tenants, being their employee. He was dismissed from the service of Singer (Pak.) Limited on 8-4-1991 and was asked to vacate. A.Q.
8. Najmi, however, approached the Administrator to secure the tenancy of the property directly in his name. Per letter, dated 30-9-1991, the Administrator terminated the tenancy of Singer (Pak.)
9. Limited, allegedly, on the ground that the property was being used for a godown, which was a commercial purpose and besides it had been let out to A.Q. Najmi at a higher rent of Rs,6,000, whereas M/s. Singer (Pak.) Limited were paying only Rs,2,480 as rent to the Organisation. Through the same letter viz., that, dated 30-9-1991, the Administrator correspondingly granted the tenancy to A.Q. Najmi. This led to the filing of Constitutional Petition No,D-1428 of 1991 by Singer (Pak.) Limited and that petition was allowed through an order, dated 19-12-1991, operative portion whereof is as below:--- "It is informed by Mr. Farooq H. Naek that the respondent No,2 is no longer in existence at present.
10. The name of respondent No,2 is deleted from the array of the respondents. It is conceded by Mr. Farooq H. Naek that the impugned order, dated 30th September, 1991 was passed without any notice to the petitioner and the order is being withdrawn. Mr. Javaid also does not oppose the withdrawal of the order, dated 30th September, 1991.
11. ' The impugned order, dated 30th September, 1991 is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. In case further action is to be taken by respondent No,1 against the petitioner, a prior notice will be given to the petitioner and sufficient opportunity will be given to the petitioner to place his defence before the respondent No,1. Petition No,1428 of 1991 stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs."
12. ' Case of the petitioner, though not duly set out in the petition, as argued before us, was that around the same time, A.Q. Najmi filed Suit No,724 of 1991 on the original side of this Court against Singer (Pak.) Limited which prompted a counter suit in the same jurisdiction bearing No,240 of 1992 by Singer (Pak.) Limited against such A.Q. Najmi. These suits are claimed to be pending. Having heard the learned counsel and examined the record, we have been of the view that this litigation does not in any manner come in the way of the present proceedings though the same would remain to be decided according to its own merit.
13. ' The short question involved in these proceedings is that, basically and essential, A.Q. Najmi was a licensee of Singer (Pak.) Limited and that position is not disputed. Besides, tenancy rights were conferred on A.Q. Najmi through the same order, in the earlier part of which the tenancy of Singer (Pak.) Limited was terminated and this entire order, dated 30-9-1991 was declared to have been passed without lawful authority and, therefore, of no legal effect in Constitutional Petition No,D-1428 of 1991, substance of the order therein having been reproduced above. We would also take this opportunity to reproduce the letter order, dated 30-9-1991 in extenso and such is this:--- "M/s. Singer (Pak.) Ltd. Had been awarded, the tenancy of house No,37-C, 5th East Street Defence Housing Authority Karachi for using the same for residential purpose but instead the house was commercialized in the following manner:---
(i) First, a Warehouse was opened in the premises, which is situated in a purely residential area, which is not only against the terms of tenancy of the A.P.O., but also against the By-Laws of Defence Housing Authority.
(ii) The house was let out to one Mr. A.Q. Najmi @ Rs,6,000 p.m. While paying the rent to A.P.O.
14. Rs,2,840 p.m. Hence payment of Rs,3,160 p.m. Was illegally derived from it.
(2) In view of the above in exercise of the powers vested in the undersigned under section 16(1) of the Abandoned Properties (Management) Act XX of 1975), it has been decided to discontinue the tenancy of M/s. Singer (Pak.) Ltd. Regarding the abovesaid Abandoned Property w,e,f, 12-8-1991 (A.N.).
(3) On his request, the occupant of the house, namely Mr. A.Q. Najmi who has been put in possession by M/s. Singer (Pak.) Ltd. Has been granted the tenancy. The income derived from Mr. A.Q. Najmi will be deposited in the A.P.O's. Account."
15. It follows upon the foregoing that the tenancy of A.Q. Najmi came into being because that of Singer (Pak.) Limited had stood displaced. Now, if the tenancy of Singer (Pak.) Limited was revived such would automatically displace the tenancy of A.Q. Najmi. This precisely is what has happened pursuant to the orders in Constitutional Petition No,D-1428 of 1991. Our conclusion to this effect is based on the concept that tenancy in law, much as ownership, is a A valuable right and an exclusive tenancy or title to property cannot brook another like and an independently co-extensive right in the same property and at the same time. It therefore, follows, as we have said, that with the revival of the exclusive tenancy of Singer (Pak.) Limited, the corresponding tenancy of A.Q. Najmi ceased to exist. A.Q. Najmi, therefore, has been left with no right to urge in this petition.
16. This brings us to another aspect of the matter. Such consists of A.Q. Najmi approaching the Administrator and, in the process, upon getting the tenancy of Singer (Pak.) Limited terminated, obtaining the same for himself. This could not be done because much as a lessee is estopped from questioning the title of his lessor, a licensee is estopped from raising a challenge to the title of the licensor. A.Q. Najmi being a licensee of Singer (Pak.) Limited could not lawfully bypass the right or title of his own licensor. Such was impermissible under Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order.
17. What is more, the same also appears to have been mala fide because for the precise reason, partly on account of which Singer (Pak.) Limited tenancy was terminated namely, allegedly higher rent being paid by A.Q. Najmi to Singer (Pak.) Limited, the same benefit was conferred on A.Q.
18. Najmi, who was admittedly the other contracting party of Singer (Pak.) Limited to the allegedly illegal transaction. It is another matter though that A.Q. Najmi was not the tenant of Singer (Pak.)
19. Limited at all and was in occupation solely as its licensee, being an employee of Singer (Pak.)
20. Limited. Another facet of mala fides is that even though Constitutional Petition No,D-1428 of 1991 was disposed of on 19-12-1991 and with it the tenancy of A.Q. Najmi under the Administrator ceased, rents were continued to be received by the Administrator and, as stated in the counter-affidavit, it took the death of the concerned Assistant in the Organisation and many years before truth dawned upon the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to refuse to accept rent from A.Q. Najmi and recognise Singer (Pak.) Limited as the tenant of the property, which ought to have been done much earlier. As it is, the respondents, in the current state of things, do not dispute the tenancy of Singer (Pak.)
21. Limited and recognise it explicitly, For the aforesaid reasons, we have seen no merit in this petition and besides on account of questionable conduct, reflected above and avoidance in stating full facts in the petition, no relief is warranted herein and the petition was dismissed through the short order abovereferred.