Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑47 of 1970; decided on 20th August 1970.

(On appeal from the order of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 17th April 1970, in 2nd Appeal No. 80 of 1970).

S. 13‑D's suit for possession of plot of land in occupation of H decreed by civil Court‑Appeal by H‑Pending his appeal H agreeing to pay rent to D in respect of land from September 1958 to July 1965 and also promising to vacate land on 31‑3‑67‑H, on due date i. e. 31‑3‑67 failing to vacate land and D putting decree into execution‑H resisting decree on ground that after compromise effected during pendency of his appeal relationship of landlord and tenant was created and as such he could not be ejected save in accordance with provisions of Ordinance VI of 1959‑Held : No relationship of landlord and tenant envisaged by Ordinance VI of 1959 was established and provisions of Ordinance not attracted in circumstances.

Khalid Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mujahid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Kishanchand, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 20th August 1970.

SALAHUDDIN AHMED,J This petition arises out of a suit for possession which had been decreed against the petitioner by the trial court but on appeal the matter was compromised between the parties on certain terms. Inter alia it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner should pay rent of the portion of the plot in dispute at the rate of Rs.10 per month from the Ist September 1958 to the Ist July 1965 and to continue to pay the same rent till the date of vacating the plot. The petitioner also agreed to vacate the premises in dispute and remove the construction if any on or before the 31^st of March 1967. In default he was liable to eviction in accordance with the decree of the court. Furthermore, the petitioner undertook not to put up any further structure.

Admittedly, there was no relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties prior to the said compromise. It may also be noted that the decree for possession was not set aside.

The petitioner having failed to vacate the premises by the 31st of March 196'7, as agreed to, the respondent‑decree‑holder started execution proceedings, but was unsuccessful in the executing Court as well as in his appeal to the District Judge. The respondent, thereafter, approached the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, as it then was on second appeal and the High Court, too, dismissed the appeal in limine.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that although there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties previously, yet by virtue of the compromise a relationship of landlord and tenant was created and as such the parties were bound by the terms of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, section 13 of which debars the ejectment of the tenant. The High Court did not agree with this contention. All the three Courts including the High Court have held that the compromise merely gave time to the petitioner to continue in possession uptil 31st March 1967 and did not create any relationship of landlord and tenant. This concession was granted subject to payment of rent and taxes. It is difficult to accept the contention that the respondent voluntarily wished to forego the advantage he had gained and to defeat the decree for possession which he had already succeeded in obtaining. In these circumstances the question of the application of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, 1970 (sic) does not arise.

There is no question of public importance involved in the case. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.