' The facts giving rise to the instant civil revision are that the petitioner is in occupation of House No, 13/B, Street No, 17, Sector F-7/2, Islamabad, as a tenant under respondents Nos. 1 and 2. After obtaining the said house on lease from respondents Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner started running a beauty parlor and a coffee shop therein, whereupon respondents Nos. 1 and 2 i,e, landlords objected 'to the house being used for the said purpose. Apart from respondents Nos.1 and 2, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 which are Capital Development Authority Islamabad and a Director of the said Authority, also issued notices to the petitioner for the non-conforming use of the premises in question on the ground that the house in occupation of the petitioner was situate in a residential Sector and as per the Building and Zoning Regulations of the Capital Development Authority, the residential house could not be used for commercial purposes. Faced with the aforesaid notices from the landlords as also from the C.D.A. The petitioner instituted a suit in the Civil Court so as to resist the action against her by and at the instance of the respondents. The suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Whereby a temporary injunction was sought against the respondents during the pendency of the suit not to interfere in the business of the petitioner/plaintiff. The said application was contested between the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents and the learned trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff being guilty of nonconforming use of the premises in her occupation in a residential Sector did not have a prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction. The petitioner/plaintiff feeling aggrieved of the dismissal of her application for temporary injunction, thereafter preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Islamabad, which too met the same fate as that of her application for temporary injunction and was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide his order, dated 11-3-2000. The petitioner has now approached this Court in the exercise of its provisional jurisdiction so as to interfere in the orders of the two Courts below.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his submissions and in support of the revision petition did not deny the fact that the petitioner was running a beauty parlor and a coffee shop in the premises in her occupation as a tenant under respondents Nos. 1 and 2. He also could not deny that the premises in occupation of the petitioner were situated in a residential Sector of the C.D.A., Islamabad. The learned counsel for the petitioner could also not deny the fact that the use of the premises by the petitioner for the purpose other than the residential was a non- conforming use and was in violation of the Building and Zoning Regulations of the C.D.A. The only plea urged by learned counsel for the petitioner was that several other such commercial enterprises were being run in various other Sectors of C.D.A. But no action had been taken by the C.D.A. Against the use of the said premises on the ground that their use was a non-conforming use.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently controverted the submissions made for and on behalf of the petitioner. They submitted that both the Courts below recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner did not have a prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction. Their further submission was that the orders passed by the two Courts below as were challenged by the petitioner in the instant civil revision did not suffer from any jurisdictional defect nor it could be said that the said orders were illegal or materially irregular. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner failed to point out any defect or legal infirmity in the orders of the two Courts below keeping in view the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Their further submission was that having herself admitted the fact of the premises in occupation of the petitioner being used for commercial purposes, it could not lie in her mouth to say that notwithstanding the said use the action against the petitioner by and at the instance of the C.D.A. Was illegal or was such as was not authorized by law.
4. I have considered and evaluated the respective submission of learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the orders passed by the two Courts below.
5. The two Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner does not have a prima facie case in her favor. It is not the case of the petitioner either that the use of the premises in occupation of the petitioner is not a nonconforming use violate of the Building and Zoning Regulations of C.D.A. In the face of this clear admission by the petitioner, the mere fact that several other persons were running such-like commercial enterprises in other sectors in Islamabad would not confer a right on the petitioner for the simple reason that one thousand illegalities would not legalize yet another illegality. In any event, it was vehemently contended on behalf of the C.D.A., Islamabad that all such persons as were guilty of the non-conforming use of the residential premises were being proceeded against by the C.D.A. And notices were being issued against them as well. The petitioner cannot on the strength of those cases plead immunity from legal action against herself. I see no force in the civil revision which is dismissed as being wholly misconceived and devoid of any merit whatever.