' This order disposes of after notice W. P. No, 2516/77 and Cr.
0. No, 160-W/77.
2. The petitioner claims to be an old tenant under Muhammad Hanif respondent No, 3 in a house in Bahawalpur. He also claimed that he had been paying the rent etc. And discharging all the legal responsibilities of a tenant. The respondent No, 3 i,e, the landlord as also his wife wanted to evict him from the premises unlawfully and in the process they made an attempt in May and June and threatened him dire consequences in case he declined to vacate the premises. On the promulgation of the Martial Law in the country an application was filed before Incharge, Complaint Cell, District Council, Bahawalpur where both the parties were called and the petitioner was concerned into effecting a compromise, and giving in writing that he would vacate the premises.
Thereafter a direction was given to vacate the possession by the 20th September 1977. He filed Constitution petition on 20-9-1977 which came up before me the same day and while calling for the report I passed an order directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the property of the petitioner except in accordance with civil law of the land. On 15-11-1977 I allowed the petitioner to raise the additional grounds as he pleaded that in disregard of the order passed by this Court he was dispossessed by the respondents on 26th and 27th September 1977. He also filed a Criminal on 15-10-1977 against the forced delivery of possession in spite of an order to that contrary. Notice was served on the respondents and I have also recorded the statement of Mst.
Mahmooda Begum who was at the hearing not assisted by a counsel though her husband was present. The factual part of the case as appearing from the statement of Mst. Mahmooda Begum herself is that she had applied to the Martial Law Authority against the petitioner her tenant for getting him evicted. It was, however, claimed by her that it was the petitioner himself who reached a compromise which was recorded where under after receiving a certain sum of money he vacated the possession of the property at two stages-the first one was completed on 18th and the final one on 26-9-1977.
3. So far as the police officer against whom notices had issued in contempt are concerned, they did file a written statement saying that it was Mst. Mahmooda Begum who had applied to the Martial Law Authorities for getting the property evicted from the petitioner, her tenant, and the proceedings had been going on since last week of August 1977 and the agreement was reached on 18-9-1977 and a complaint was made by Mst. Mahmooda Begum on 21st September 1977 that he had not in terms of the compromise vacated and that they were again made to appear before the Martial Law Authority. From such facts of the case it is clear that a tenant was sought to be evicted from the property of which he was tenant not in any way in default or in breach of the terms of the tenancy. It is also clear for that purpose the assistance of the Martial Law Authority was sought by the landlord and that the Martial Law Authority did come to her rescue by entertaining the application by calling for the parties and by forcing settlement out of them. The reluctance of the tenant to hand over the possession and also the payment of the compensation to the tenant for getting him evicted all show that the proceedings were against the statutory protection enjoyed by the tenant and that against the express order of his Court eviction of the tenant was secured. In order, therefore, to protect the jurisdiction of this Court, to strengthen it and to effectively make it available to the parties who are not dealt with in accordance with law in respect of their rights, it is directed that the restoration of possession should take place and the respondents shall be under duty to do so forthwith. If they have any right under the agreement or they have paid any amount they can seek appropriate remedy for recovery of the amount or enforcement of the agreement provided it is shown before a Court of plenary jurisdiction to be enforceable at law. The act of dispossession being in contravention of the law and against the order of this Court and in abuse of the proceedings between the landlord and the tenant is declared to be without lawful authority and the consequence as indicated follow. The costs of the proceedings shall also be recoverable from respondents 2 and 3.
4. As regards the contempt matter, it has not been shown in respect o each respondent concerned that the order was served, what specific role was played by each in committing breach of it.
Besides, the circumstances I which the subordinate police functionaries have been working under the Martial Law Authority, who have not themselves been passing written orders yet directing the police to achieve their purposes would make it a fit case for not proceeding further. It is filed.
Writ .