Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: RAHIMUDDIN VS Respondent: NAZIRUDDINHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 2096
1988 S C M R 2096
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
RAHIM UDDIN‑‑Petitioner
versus
NAZIRUDDIN and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.382 of 1987, decided on 23rd May, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑4‑1987 in Civil Revision No.6111D of 1987).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑Eviction application moved against tenant failed on the basis of an alleged agreement of sale, with observation that landlord could seek other remedies‑‑Suit for possession was then filed against tenant which was decreed‑‑Tenant, after having lost before Civil Court, according to statement of his counsel, himself wanted to prolong litigation further by handing over possession to a third party‑‑Held, it was a classic case of process of Court being misused.
Shamim Abbas Bokhari for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents
Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMM‑AD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A tenant has sought leave to appeal in a rent restriction matter. The learned counsel states that the petitioner having failed throughout, he has handed over possession to a third person and according to him he would continue further fight before the executing Court. Therefore, this petition should be disposed of as having become infructuous. We do not agree with him. This petition merits to be dismissed otherwise, as the petitioner has no case.
2. An eviction application was moved against the petitioner under the Rent Restriction Law. It was dismissed on the basis of an alleged agreement of sale asserted with the observation that they could seek other remedies. A suit for possession was then filed against the petitioner which was decreed. The petitioner's appeal failed and his civil revision before the High Court also failed. Therefore, he filed this petition for leave to appeal.
3. It appears to be a classic case of the process of Court being misused. After having lost before the Civil Court, the petitioner according to the statement of the learned counsel himself, now wants to prolong the litigation further by handing over the possession to the third party. We cannot but deprecate this practice. The executing court might, however, take note of it. We would avoid any further comment. This petition with the foregoing observation is dismissed.
M . Y . H . / R ‑61 / S Petition dismissed.