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 Appeal No. 78 of 1980, decided on 21st December, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12‑4‑1980 of the High Court Lahore in S.A.O. No.327 of 1975).
‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑Ejectment matter‑‑Appellant‑tenant's counsel submitting that he was prepared to deliver possession of disputed shop to respondent- landlord and he would not press appeal if some further time be given to him to vacate‑‑Respondent‑landlord's counsel agreeing to allow further period of four months for making alternate arrangement‑‑Such amicable settlement between parties‑ accepted and appeal dismissed as not pressed.
Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
Gulzarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 21st December, 1983.
The appellant took Shop No. L/84‑B(3)/701‑B, Kasamabad, Rawalpindi on lease from Fateh Muhammad, now dead and represented by his legal representatives, in the year 1961.
Sometime in 1969, Fateh Muhammad applied to the Rent Controller for the ejectment of the appellant from the said shop on the ground that he needed it bona fide for his personal use. This plea was accepted and the appellant herein ordered to deliver possession of the shop to the landlord. His appeal against the said order to the Additional District Judge and his second appeal to the High Court having failed hence the present appeal by leave of this Court.
Mr. Samad Mahmood, learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that he is prepared to deliver possession of the shop to the respondents and would not press the appeal if he is given some further time to vacate it. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Gulzarin Kiani submitted that the respondents are prepared to allow further period of four months for making alternative arrangement and to hand, over vacant possession of the shop before 1st of May, 1984. The appellant has accepted this offer. He undertakes to vacate the shop voluntarily without constraining the respondents to have resort to execution proceedings, by 1st May, 1984. He has further agreed to pay the monthly rent during this period.
We consider that this amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties can be accepted. The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed as not pressed but the appellant is allowed to remain in the shop until Ist of May, 198.1. tie shall deliver the vacant possession of the shop before the said date to the respondents voluntarily and shall continue to pay the monthly rent upto the said date.
The parties, however shall bear their own costs.
S.Q. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer