' This petition for revision arises out of a suit filed by the petitioner, for the recovery of Rs, 1,005 paid as rent, in the Court of Judge Small Cause Court, Lahore. According to the plaint respondent was occupying a portion of the property No, S. I.
34. S. 8., Gowalmandi, Lahore, which was used as shop. On the commencement of the Settlement Operation, P. T. O. Was issued in his favour. It was alleged that the defendant erased the word "shop" in the P. T.
0. And added "one shop and residential unit". The word "property" in place of the word "shop" was also substituted in Appendix IX issued by the Settlement Authorities, and the transfer price of Rs, 8,640 was also changed to Rs, 12,040. These interpolations were made fraudulently in collusion with the officials of the Settlement Department. Subsequently a P. T. D. For the entire property was obtained on the basis of the entries in these documents. Thereafter respondent as transferee had been receiving rent from the petitioner for the residential portion in his possession. Subsequently somewhere in the year 1968, this fraudulent act of the respondent came to the knowledge of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, who exercising his revisional powers under section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, cancelled the P.
T.
0. And P. T. D. And remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision.
On remand the Deputy Settlement Commissioner confirmed that the defendant in his C. S. Form had only desired to retain the shop in his possession and no residential area whatsoever was claimed. It was also found that according to the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated the 24th of February 1960, respondent was only transferred the shop which was in his possession. The transfer of the shop in possession of the respondent was however maintained and the P. T.
0. Was accordingly amended.
2. The learned Judge Small Cause Court relying on Khalifa Abdur Rehman v. Hakim Muhammad Din
(1) held that as the P. T. O. Had been issued in favour of the respondent, although subsequently cancelled, the respondent was a landlord for that interim period and was entitled to receive rent for that period. The dictum laid down in Khalifa Abdul Rehman's case will not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. In that case, a valid P. T.
0. In favour of the transferee was issued by the Settlement Authority, which was subsequently cancelled, but there was no elements of fraud, or interpolation in the P. T.
0. By the transferee. In the instant case, no valid P. T.
0. In favour of the respondent, was ever issued by any competent authority so as to entitle him to claim any rent for the premises. The respondent knew that he was not a landlord and the representation made by him was false and he made it with a view that the petitioner should act upon it. In presence of these forged documents, respondent, cannot be given the status of a landlord, as contemplated by the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and allowed to earn premium of his own fraud.
3. The upshot of the above discussion is that the revision petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the trial Court to be decided afresh according to law. Respondent shall bear the costs throughout.
(1) PLD 1966 Quetta 48