Find a Lawyer

Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 85‑R of 1981 in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1978, decided on 24th October, 1981.

(Petition under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with Contempt of Courts Act, 1975).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

-----Art. 204‑Contempt of superior Courts‑Tenants not vacating premises within time allowed to vacate‑Respondents tenants, however, vacating premises and handing over possession to petitioner landlady Further proceedings held, not necessary in circumstances of case and contempt application disposed of.‑[Contempt of Court].

Muhammad Ismail Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Mian Attaur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Date of hearing : 24th October, 1981.

‑Mst. Mussarrat Bashirul Hassan has filed the present application for contempt of Court against the three respondents.

2. The facts leading to this application are briefly, that Mst. Mussarrat Bashirul Hassan filed an ejectment application under Rent Restriction Ordinance against the three respondents who were tenants of the ground floor in her House No. 30‑Q Gulberg‑II, Lahore. The Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the respondents. Aggrieved 'by his order they. filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same. They then filed an S. A. O. in the High Court, which met the same fate and the High Court upheld the findings of the Courts below. The respondents then filed a petition for leave to appeal and leave was granted. The appeal was, however, dismissed on 1‑4‑1981. The respondents (appellants in the appeal) had requested for four months time (i.e. up to 31‑7‑1981) to vacate the portion in their possession and undertook to hand over the vacant possession of the said premises to the petitioner at the end of that period.

The petitioner filed this application on 20‑9‑1981 complaining that the respondents had not vacated the premises in question notwithstanding the undertaking given by them before this Court on 1‑4‑1981. Notice was issued to the respondents to appear in this Court on 20‑10‑1981. The respondents failed to appear on that date and the Court was informed that they could not be traced with the result that notice could not be served on them. The Court, therefore, issued non‑bailable warrants against them for the 24th. On this, the respondents appeared in Court on the very next day and filed an application for grant of bail. The matter was fixed for the 22nd of October, 1981. The respondents submitted in Court that they had already removed the press installed by them in the premises and had vacated the portion in their possession. A bailiff of this' Court was deputed to verify the position at the spot, who reported that although the press had been removed from a portion of the ground floor yet the remaining portion of the premises was still in their occupation. We then asked the respondents whether he had not taken the entire ground floor on lease and, therefore, were not obliged to vacate the entire ground floor. The learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from his clients, submitted that they had taken only a portion of the ground floor in which they had installed the press and they had now removed the same in compliance with the order of this Court.

But the ejectment application filed by the petitioner,, and the written statement filed by the respondents before the Rent Controller as well as the judgment of this Court, indicate that they (respondents) were the lessees of the entire ground floor. The respondents, however, stuck to the position that they were only tenants of a portion of the ground floor of the house in question and not the entire ground floor. We, therefore, called for

the original record of the case from the Record Room of the District Court and adjourned the case to the 23rd. The record was accordingly produced before us on that day. On examining the lease deed and the site plan of the house (wherein the portion from which the respondents‑tenants were sought to be ejected, was marked in red pencil), it transpired that they were tenants of the entire ground floor. When confronted with these documents the respondents undertook to get the remaining portion of the ground floor vacated by the next day. The case was therefore adjourned to the 24th. On that date, the respondents informed the Court that they had vacated the entire ground floor but the landlady's husband had refused to take its possession because he demanded certain arrears of rent as well as the costs for the damage caused by the respondents to the building. Since a dispute was likely to arise subsequently as to the condition in which the tenants‑respondents had left the portion in their possession, we required them to go to the spot and prepare an inventory stating in detail the present condition of the premises in question. The case was again called out at 1‑00 p.m. on the same day and an inventory prepared by Munawar Hussain, A. S. Gulberg, showing the present condition of the premises in question was produced before us. It was signed by both the parties. The landlady's husband stated that he had taken over the possession of the premises in question.

3. Since the respondents have now handed over the possession of the premises in question to the petitioner, we do not wish to take any further proceedings against the respondents on the contempt application, which therefore stands disposed of.

4. As for the landlady's claim with regard to the arrears of rent and the damages to the property she can approach the appropriate forum inter alia on the strength of the inventory signed by both the parties.

Application disposed of.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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