' JAMALUDDIN 13. Aims, J.-The petitioners claiming to be the joint owners of a residential house No, G-116/6 situated in Federal B Area have by this petition assailed the order dated 25-5-1976 passed by respondent No, 1, Additional Commissioner, Karachi. By this order the respondent No, 1 had confirmed his earlier provisional requisition order dated 3-5.76, in consequence of which the said house had been sealed and objections invited under the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the premises in question were in possession of a tenant which they got vacated on 30-3-1976 where after a fresh agreement of tenancy had been entered into on 15-4-1976 with one Abdul Karim, a new tenant, who had paid Ks. 3,000 as advance towards the rent, but was to get physical possession on 1-5-76. However, during the period, from 15-44976 to 1-5- 1976 there had been some dispute between the petitioners on the one side, and their sisters-in-law on the other side, who all resided together, on account of which the petitioners decided to shift to these premises which was their own property and to reside there. On account of this change the tenancy agreement with Abdul Karim had to be cancelled and not only the amount of advance of Rs, 3,000 was returned to him but a penalty amount of Rs, 1,000 was also paid to Abdul Karim for accepting this cancellation. The original tenancy agreement with Abdul Karim has not been produced, but the petitioners have annexed the agreement of cancellation of tenancy, which is dated 30-4-1976, and purports to be signed by one Abdul Karim. According to the petitioners they had also taken the house in question in their own occupation on 1-5-1976 and brought in some necessary luggage therein. The house required some repairs and renovation and some plumbers were working on the premises. However on 8-5-1976 while the families had gone to attend a marriage ceremony and the plumbers who were working, had gone to take their meals, the staff of the respondent No, 1 without giving any notice to that petitioners sealed the house an affixed a notice or intimation on the outer door of the same. Subsequent to this, in spite of objections being filed by one Sayed Arnir Ahmed who repressed the petitioners, the respondent No, 1 did not hear the same and confirmed his first order on 25-5-1976 which is the impugned order, information of which was given to the petitioners only when their counsel appeared before him on 26.5-76 and moved an application before him.
3. Now the contents o' the impugned order show, that Mr. Syed Amir Ahmad had flied objections against the first provisional requisition and sealing of the house and that he was present and heard at the time the first order was passed. It is also stated that Mr. Syed Amir Ahmad admitted that the hons was earlier on rent and had been given to certain brokers of the Est ate Agency for getting it rented out. He also had admitted that his family, that is the petitioners, was living in Ali Manzi!, Plot No, 117 which is a double storey-building on 600 sqr. Yards and that the same is owned by him. This Syed Arnir Ahmad is husband of petitioner No, 1 and brother-in-law of petitioner No, 2.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has attacked the impugned order, mainly on two grounds; that the house could not be requisitioned under the provisions of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, as it was in the actual occupancy of the petitioners, and secondly that they were not given a chance of hearing before the final orders were passed. Now tne relevant portion of section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, as subsequently amended by the West Pakistan Requisioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) (Sind Amendment)
Ordinance of 1970, reads as wirier:- "Section 3.-0) If in the opinion of the Provincial Government, it is necessary or expedient to requisition any building for the use of any of Central Government, the Provincial Government or any corporate body established by or under the authority of the Central Government or the Provincial Government, the Provincial Government may by order in writing requisition any building and may make such further orders as appear to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning: ' Provided...........................................................................................................................
' Provided...........................................................................................................................
' Provided also that if a building is in "occupation of any person, no order for its requisitioning shall be passed unless a notix of at least, two weeks is given to the occupant to show cause against the action proposed to be taken and if and wash an order of requisitioning is passed, the occupant shall be allowed a period of one month, at least, to vacate the building and such occupant shall thereupon comply with that order: ' Provided that no owner in occupation of a residential house shall be required to vacate it.
(2-a) Any person aggrieved by an order made under subsection (1) requisitioning any building may make an application to the authority making the order, to review the order and on such application being made, such authority, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard and adducing the evidence in support of his application, may confirm, modify or rescind the order."
' Under section 10 of the said Act the Provincial Government has the power to delegate any of its authorities to any other officer.
5. In the instant case, the alleged application filed by the counsel for the petitioners before the respondent on 26th May, 1976 has not been produced, in these proceedings. The objections filed by Syed Amir Ahmad, on 4-5-1976, neither refer to the fact of the premises being in occupancy of the petitioners nor does it mention the fact that the tenancy agreement with the above referred Abdul Karim had been cancelled on 30-4-1976. He only states that the house in question was got vacated for the purpose of self-occupation, and the day on which it was sealed it was under repairs by some plumbers.
' These premises are on the first floor, the ground floor of which is admittedly in occupation of the petitioners' tenants. The facts as put now by the petitioners before this Court vis-a-vis that they had actually occupied the house on 1-5-76 and that on 8.5-76 they had gone to attend some marriage ceremony are completely absent in the objections filed before the respondent No,
1. The impugned order also shows that the person who filed the objections on behalf of the petitioners was present and heard. There is A, nothing to show that any counsel had been engaged prior to the order passed, as what is alleged is that the counsel appeared on the following day of the order i,e, on the 26-5-76. The learned counsel has not argued as to how the impugned order does not fall w ithin the purview of West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956. Obviously a finding of fact about physical occupancy by the petitioners is involved which is against the petitioners. Facts that are disputed cannot. Be investigated in exercise of the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel has not challenged the authority of the respondent in passing the impugned orders on any legal ground, nor has he shown as to how this order could be set aside for violation of any other law.
' This petition therefore merits no further consideration and is, therefore, dismissed, but with no orders as to costs.