' Brief facts out of which present revision petition arises are that father of the petitioner was employee of the respondents and respondents allotted the house in question to the father of the petitioner. The petitioner is also employee of the respondents. The petitioner filed an application before the respondents to allocate the house in question in the name of the petitioner but the respondents failed to redress the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. The petitioner also filed an application under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order, dated 28-1-2002. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide judgment, dated 11-5-2002. Hence, the revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that both the Courts below were erred in law as they did not consider the allocation policy of the respondents. The contents of the policy of the respondents reveal that the respondents are duty bound to allot the house in question or any other- house to the petitioner but this fact was not considered by both the Courts below, therefore, the impugned judgment/order are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the impugned orders of the Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of the record.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record myself.
4. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore to resolve the controversy between the parties:--- "The learned counsel for the respondents has made statement today to the effect that the appellant has been expelled from his employment of daily wages. He further disclosed that the appellant had also filed a case before the Labour Court in regard to the retention of flat on the basis of his employment and retirement of his father. His plea was turned down. Now he has gone to Labour Appellate Tribunal wherein his appeal is yet pending. The appellant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of two Courts at one time. Moreover he is no more in service. His father could retain that house till 6 months from the date of his retirement. His period expired in the year 1998. The appellant is neither allottee nor authorized to retain possession. He has retained possession as an illegal occupant so he is bound to pay the rent at least at the Government Rate to be deducted from his wages. In these circumstances, the appellant had neither cause of action nor locus standi to institute the suit. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed/rejected the stay petition as well as the plaint. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, it is just and proper. Hence, the same is upheld. The appeal is without force, thus is dismissed."
5. The aforesaid operative part clearly reveals that the petitioner had also filed a case before the Labour Court with regard to the house in question. The aforesaid operative part also reveals that the petitioner had no prima facie- case, therefore, both the Courts below had decided the case against the petitioner in terms of parameters prescribed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shahzada Muhammad Umer Beg v. Sultan Mehmood Khan and another PLD 1970 SC 139. The judgments of both the Courts below are in accordance with dictum laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:--- ' Estate Officer, Government of Pakistan v. Syed Tahir Hussain PLD 1962 SC 75. Iris Sammuel Gill v.
Government of Punjab PLD 1979 Lah. 467, Dr. Munir Ahmad, M.B.,B.S., Medical Officer v. Chairman House Allotment Committee and others 1983 CLC 1783, Imtiaz Hussain v. Government of Pakistan and 2 others 1992 CLC 1122.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this civil revision has no merits and the same is dismissed.