Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 34 of 1983, decided on 10th April, 1985.

---S. 13--Landlord and tenant--Ejectment--Parties arriving at compromise on terms and conditions acceptable to both--High Court considered compromise between parties and took into consideration undertaking given to Court by parties--Held, since compromise had effect of advancing public policy and serving public interest by shortening litigation and truth having prevailed, Court was not reluctant in allowing same--Writ petition disposed of in terms of compromise.

Sh. Ziaullah for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents Nos: 1 and 2.

Jahangir A. Jhojha for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing: 10th April, 1985.

In this eviction dispute between the landlord and the tenant, the parties have arrived at a compromise course. It stands frankly admitted before me that notwithstanding the pleas raised by the parties, the factual position is that the petitioner had paid as advance Rs.35,000 to the landlord for the construction of the building and subsequent adjustment. This fact is not being denied on behalf of the landlord.

2. The compromise arrived at between the parties is in the following terms: -

(i) That in final adjustment and settlement the landlord shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) to the tenant and in return the landlord is to be handed over the receipts for the deposit of monthly rent from January, 7983, to April, 1985 at the rate of Rs.700 which comes to Rs.19,600.

(ii) The tenant Taj Din who is accompanied by his learned counsel undertakes and agrees to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the shop in dispute and deliver the same to the landlord on the expiry of a period of one year from today, that is, by 9-4-1986 without the landlord having resort to execution. It is further undertaken by Taj Din that he during this grace period of occupation of the shop shall do no act which is injurious to the property or diminishes it in its value.

(iii) During this grace period of one year, Taj Din will continue to pay the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.700 to the landlord before the fifth of each month by sending it through money order. The tenant shall also be responsible for clearing the' water, electricity and sui-gas charges.

(iv) Taj Din had also filed a suit for permanent injunction which is now pending in appeal before a learned Additional District Judge at Lahore. Similarly there is a suit filed by the landlord for recovery of rent from the tenant. There are its filed by the landlord against the tenant. Bath the parties agree and undertake to this Court to withdraw their respective suits against each other and thus bring to a close' this frivolous multiple litigation.

(v) The respondent-landlord's son of Mian Bashir Ahmad has paid in Court to the petitioner Taj Din a sum of Rs.10,000 (rupees ten thousand) in cash which has been counted and received by the petitioner. The balance amount of Rs.40,000 (rupees forty thousand) will be paid by the landlord to Taj Din by crossed cheque by the 10th of June, 1985. The petitioner has handed over to the counsel for the landlord the original receipt's for deposit of rent from January; 1983 to April, 1985 which amount the landlord can now withdraw from the Rent Controller. It is also directed that the leaned Rent Controller/Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, on presentation of these receipts shall ensure that the landlord gets this payment without being made to toss about this payment without being made to toss about since he is a 78 years old man. The payment is to be arranged on presentation to the respondent-landlord within two weeks.

3. I have considered, the compromise between the parties and also taken into consideration the undertaking given to the Court by the parties. Since this compromise has the effect of advancing public policy and serving public interest by shortening litigation and the truth prevails, therefore, I have no hesitation in allowing it. The writ petition A stands disposed of in terms of the compromise. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

1. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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