Mst. MEHRAJ BEGUM Alias Mst. MAJAN AND Another vs SETTLEMENT &

ORDER

1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J: The dispute in this case relates to House No. SV-1S-5, situates at Dhobi Mandi, Old Anarkali, Lahore. Long before the Partition of the Indian Sub-continent, deceased Ahmad Ali, who was husband of petitioner No. 1 and the father of petitioner No. 2, was the tenant of the said house. On the migration of the Hindu owner of the house in question, however. Ahmad Ali continued to remain in possession of the house as tenant but in the year 1965, he died. On the promulgation of Settlement Scheme No. VIII, therefore, the two petitioners herein, who were in occupation or the house, applied for the transfer of the same and in that behalf submitted their Form No. IH-1324 to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 30-6-1968. On 27-2-1971, the said LH Form was rejected and vide letter dated a-3-1971, the petitioners herein are said to have been informed accordingly.

2. On 15-4-1971 the petitioners challenged the said order in appeal before Additional settlement Commissioner, who vide hisorder dated 30-6-1971 dismissed the same. Therefore, the petitioners went to the Settlement Commissioner in revision but the same was also dismissed, vide order dated 26-10-1971. Finally, they filed Writ Petition No. 938-R/1971 in the High Court, but the same also failed as it was rejected vide order, dated 28-5-1979.

3. We have heard Ch. Mushtaq Masood, the learned counsel for the peti--tioners. He argued that the initial order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 27-2-1971 was without jurisdiction, as the same had been passed without hearing the petitioners, and so the consequent orders passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 15-4-1971 and the Settlement Commissioner on 30-5-1971 would suffer from the same infirmity. There is no force in this contention. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner have, upon the analysis of documentary evidence, rejected the same very contention urged before them by the petitioners, therefore, the said finding recorded against them being a finding of fact cannot again be reagitated in these proceedings The learned counsel, however, argued that all the said orders passed b the Settlement authorities were based on the statement made before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by Muhammad Anwar but he was not the authorize representative of the petitioners. This contention is also untenable. It is conceded by the learned counsel that Muhammad Anwar is the son of petitioner No. 1 and according to his statement recorded on 27-2-1971 (se page 27 of the petition) he claimed to be a T. V. Radio Engineer having his own business on Ponchh Road, Rawalpindi. It is not denied that Muhammad Anwar bad made the said statement, therefore, even if he had not been formally given a power of attorney by the petitioners herein he must] be held to have properly represented the petitioners in the proceedings before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, to which no exception can now be taken.

4. The basic difficulty in the way of the petitioners further is that they were in arrear of rent of Rs. 2,780, and at no stage of proceedings in the Depart--ment, bad they made any offer to pay the same. It was for this reason that e the High Court relying on Ghulam Muhammad v. Ziaullah Khan (1979 SCMR 915) held that even on this ground the petitioners were not entitled to seek the transfer of the house of which they were in possession.

5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order passed by the High Courts is unexceptionable, this petition therefore, fails and is dismissed.