Lt: Col. (Rtd.) Shaikh SULTAN MUHAMMAD Versus CHAIRMAN OF ARMY OFFICERS HOUSING SCHEME

ORDER

1. NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑ The petitioner is a retired Lieutenant Colonel, who retired from the Army in October, 1986. It appears that during his service in the Army he was provided residential accommodation by the Army and, after retirement in October, 1986, he has been able to retain such residential accommodation. The grievance of the petitioner, in the present Constitutional petition, is that recently action has been taken by the Army authorities for getting the said premises vacated by the petitioner.

2. When this matter came up before us yesterday we had asked the learned counsel to refer to any provision of law, rule or scheme, which confers any right on a retired Army Officer to retain Government accommodation after retirement, and for this purpose, learned counsel took one day's time. Today Mr. Pirzada has submitted that the petitioner is a tenant and the provisions of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act are applicable and he cannot be ejected except by way of an application made to the Rent Controller and under his orders. Nowhere in the memo of petition any such fact or ground has been taken. In the absence of any averment in that context, it would be presumed that the premises are Government‑owned. In any case, as there is no statement in the acts or in the grounds in this regard, we have not accented the contention of the learned counsel in this regard.

3. The learned counsel has not been able to show provision of any law, rule I or scheme, which entitles a retired Army Officer to retain Government accommodation for an indefinite period. The contention of the learned counsel is that there is an Army Housing Scheme, of which the petitioner is a member and it is expected that after some time a house in that scheme will be provided to the petitioner and till such time such a house is made available to him, he cannot be ejected from the premises, which he has been occupying since 1983.

4. As it has not been shown that provision of any law, rule or scheme. Has case is made out for interference, in any action that is being taken by the Army authorities for getting the premises in occupation of the petitioner vacated.

5. As a result, this petition is dismissed in limine.

2. This application for interim relief has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. .

6. M.Y.H./S‑251/K Petition dismissed.