Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No.1157 of 1981, decided on 14th May, 1983.
‑‑‑Ss. 13 & 15‑‑Personal requirement‑‑Tenant reaching a compromise with landlord and proposing to take oath on Holy Qur'an that he required premises for personal use‑‑Landlord accepting offer and taking oath and Rent Controller after recording statements of parties fixing a period of eight months for vacation of property and adjourning case without any reason‑‑Tenant later on filing application before Rent Controller alleging that he was an illiterate person and that Rent Controller had obtained his signatures forcibly underneath his statement and requested decision of case on merits‑‑Rent Controller without passing order on said application ordering ejectment of tenant‑‑Held, fact that Rent Controller recorded statement of parties, fixed period of eight months for vacation of property and adjourned case without any reason coupled With passing of no order on application of tenant and tenant showing no confidence in him raised a reasonable doubt that proceedings of compromise were not recorded with consent of parties‑‑Order of Rent Controller passed when compromise reached also not making a mention of fact that landlord took oath in terms agreed between parties Order of appellate Court, setting aside order of ejectment of tenant and remanding case for fresh decision in accordance with law, maintained and interference declined by‑High Court in writ jurisdiction.
Aslam Riaz for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
S.M. Almas for Respondent. No. 2
Date of hearing: 14th May, 1983.
This petition arises out of the order, dated 12‑1‑1981 of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad whereby he set aside the order, dated 28‑7‑1980 of the learned Rent Controller Faisalabad and remanded the case to him for fresh decision in accordance with law.
2. The petitioners filed an ejectment petition against respondent No.2 from the premises in dispute which was resisted by him. The learned Rent Controller fixed the case on 22‑6‑1980 for evidence of the respondent. On the same day as it appears from the interim order of the learned Rent Controller that the parties had effected compromise and their statements were recorded. Muhammad Ashraf respondent made offer to the petitioner that he should take special oath on Holy Qur'an in respect of his personal need being genuine and he would vacate the premises during the time fixed by the Rent Controller. Abdur Rahim petitioner accepted the offer and allegedly took the proposed oath on Holy Qur'an. He fixed the period of eight months for the vacation of the disputed premises by the respondent. He however, adjourned the case to 1‑7‑1980 for final orders. On 29‑6‑1980 the respondent moved an application before the Rent Controller wherein it was stated that he was illiterate and that the Rent Controller had obtained his signatures forcibly underneath his statement and requested for decision of the case on merits. The learned Rent Controller did not decide that application and put up the same on 30‑6‑1980 and thereafter on 1‑7‑1980. On 1‑7‑1980 the learned Rent Controller could not pronounce the order on account of the stay order received by him from the Court of the District Judge in transfer application moved by the respondent. The application was ultimately dismissed and the learned Rent Controller vide his order, dated 28‑7‑1980 passed order of respondent's ejectment which was challenged in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad allowed the same, set aside the order of respondent's ejectment and remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller as aforementioned.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no appeal was competent before the learned Additional District Judge because the order of respondent's ejectment was passed with consent of the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the contesting‑respondent, on the other hand, stated that this petition against the order of remand is not competent. The learned Additional District Judge has dealt with the entire case in detail and this Court would not interfere in the same in writ jurisdiction. It was also stated that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller cannot be considered to be a decree passed within the meaning of Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have seen the documents on the record. The fact that the learned Rent Controller on 22‑6‑1980 recorded the statement of the parties by fixing a period of eight months for vacation of the property in dispute and adjourned the case to 1‑7‑1980 without any reason coupled with passing of no order on the application and the respondent's showing no‑confidence in him raises a reasonable doubt that the proceedings of compromise were not recorded with the consent of the parties. It is also significant that the order, dated 22‑6‑1980 also does not make mention of the fact that Abdur Rahim petitioner took oath in terms agreed between the parties. The learned Additional District Judge after taking into consideration all these aspects rightly set aside the order of respondent No.2's ejectment and remanded the case for fresh decision in accordance with law.
6. No reasonable ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to interfere in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly I find no merit in this petition and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
7. The parties are directed 'to appear before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad on 28‑5‑1983 who shall direct them to appear before the learned Rent Controller and the latter shall decide the case within a period of two months.
M. Y. H. /A‑4/L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer