Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 274 of 1974, decided on 22nd October 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 28th February, 1974, in L. P. A. No. 6 of 1974/Writ Petition No. 1384 of 1973).
‑‑ Art. 199‑Petitioners obtaining joint lease to hold cattle market at specified places but one lessee repudiating lease on site of market being changed by lessor District Council on pretext of lease money being exorbitant‑District Council not agreeing to reduction of lease money and cancelling lease‑Lease, held, repudiated not merely by one lessee on his own behalf but on behalf ‑of his co‑lessees as well‑Not open to petitioners to enforce agreement already repudiated by themselves.
Saeed Akhtar, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing t 22nd October 1974.
.‑---The petitioners obtained a joint lease from the District Council, Sheikhupura, to hold cattle fair at certain specified places. The site for the cattle fair was subsequently changed whereupon 0hulam Muhammad, petitioner No. 3, wrote a letter to the Administrator of the District Council repudiating the lease on the pretext that the lease money fixed was exorbitant and the lessees were not likely to make any profit. The Administrator did not agree to reduce the lease money, but accepting the offer made by Ghulam Muhammad he cancelled the lease.
The petitioners thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court to restrain the District Council from interfering with the holding of cattle fair by them. A learned Judge found the claim entirely baseless and dismissed the petition in limine on the ground that the lease stood repudiated and that a writ did not lie to enforce an agreement of lease. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
The view adopted by the learned Judge is, in law and facts, not open to any exception. In repudiating the lease Ghulam Muhammad acted not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of his co‑lessees. It was not open thereafter to the petitioners to enforce an agreement which they themselves had repudiated. We concur with the High Court that on the facts of the case a writ did not lie.
The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer