Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision Application No.59 of 1979, decided on 27th May, 1986.

‑‑‑S.115‑‑Revision against order of First Appellate Court accepting appeal of landlord in suit filed by tenant‑‑Landlord giving undertaking that tenant would not be ejected except in due course of law and that no criminal proceedings would be initiated by landlord against tenant in respect of premises in occupation of tenant‑‑Undertakings given by landlord taken on record by High Court and revision petition dismissed as withdrawn with direction that breach of undertaking would be considered as breach of injunction of High Court.

Nisarally for Applicant.

Muhammad Ahsan Shaikh for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th May, 1986.

This revision application has been filed by applicant against the judgment, dated 17‑12‑1978 of the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi, disposing of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.258 of 1978, in favour of the respondent. The last paragraph of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:‑

"In the result, I allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and also dismiss the suit itself with costs of this appeal in view of the facts that the appellant had specifically stated before the trial Court that the respondent would not be thrown out of the demised premises without due course of law and further that the appellant has already filed ejectment application against respondent which application is said to be sub judice in the IInd Court of Rent Controller, Karachi, as is evident from the application under section 151, C.P.C. filed on behalf of the defendant on 13‑8‑1978, and which application was unlawfully dismissed by the Controller, if the appellant has disturbed the amenities of the respondent, he is at liberty to resort to section 10 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959."

2. Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, gives a further undertaking that the respondent will not eject the applicant, who is admittedly a tenant of the respondent, except in due course of law. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that by due course of law the respondent means by filing an ejectment application under the Rent Restriction Ordinance in case a fresh cause of action arises. It is pointed out by the learned' counsel for the applicant that previously three ejectment applications had been filed, which all had been dismissed in favour of the applicant. A further undertaking is given by Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions of the respondent, that no criminal proceedings will be initiated by the respondent against the applicant in respect of the premises in occupation of the applicant. The aforesaid undertakings are taken on record and breach of any such undertakings will be considered as a breach of an injunction o this Court.

3. In view of the aforesaid undertakings given by the learned counsel for the respondent, which undertakings have been taken on record, Mr. Nisarally, learned counsel for the applicant, does not press the present revision application, which stands dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs.

M . Y . H . 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.