1. CORNELIUS, C. J.-Review is sought of the order of ll1i, Court dated the 30th June 1967, refusing review of the dismissal by the Court on the 2nd May 11967, -of a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court decision. This was to the effect that the widows of one Muhammad Hussain, who had lived with him in the house in question ever since its allotment to him in 1947, and had continued to do so after his death were rightfully entitled to transfer of the whole house which had been declared an indivisible unit, as against the claim of the present petitioner, who had been occupying a small part, of the house since 1949, under an allotment order.
2. The correctness of this view was maintained in this Court's earlier orders. Mr. S. A. Saeed seeks to challenge it on his own interpretation of the extended definition of possession provided by the Central Government's notification of the 7th March 1960, which reads as follows :- "The Central Government has decided that where a house is in the possession of the husband in pursuance of the order passed in or before the 20th day of December 1958, by a competent authority, his were, if staying with him, will also be deemed to be in possession."
3. Mr. S. A. Saeed argues that this formula does not purport to give retrospective effect to a widow's possession continuing after the death of her husband. Her direct possession only commences with his death.
4. The words of the notification produce the contrary effect. Direct possession by the widow (or were) may commence only when the husband ceases to live in the house with her, but it is to be deemed to extend back to the date from which she commenced to live with the husband in the house and continued thereafter to live there until he ceased to live in it. The only condition is that the husband should have been in possession under a competent order of date the 20th December 1958 in earlier. This provision clearly imports retrospective effect.
5. This is the view that was taken in the two earlier orders of this Court, and Mr. S. A. Saeed has said nothing that might induce us to alter it. The petition is dismissed.