Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mst. SHARIFAN and others VS Respondent: ABDUL JABBAR KHAN and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Dr. Javed Iqbal, Saad Saood Jan Title: Mst. SHARIFAN and others vs ABDUL JABBAR KHAN and others Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,394 of 1989 Date of Judgment:1989-04-09 Reported As: 1989 SCMR 1793 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 13th December, 1988 whereby F.A.O. Of the petitioners was dismissed. ' Briefly the facts are that the respondents filed an ejectment petition against their tenant Shaukat All predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in respect of the disputed shop owned by them on the ground of non-payment of rent, and impairing the value of the property. The original tenant died during the pendency of the eviction petition and consequently his legal representatives i.e, the present petitioners were brought on the record. The petition was resisted. After hearing the parties the Rent Controller held that the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners was a defaulter and thus allowed the ejectment petition of the respondents. The F.A.O. Of the petitioners against their ejectment order, as stated above was dismissed. Hence the present petition. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that the petitioners were wrongly considered as defaulter, that previously an ejectment petition was moved in 1978 as against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on the ground of default but it was withdrawn because the rent was increased and new tenancy was created whereunder the petitioners were not to be 'ejected and that the future dispute was to be referred to Panchayat. But contrary to this undertaking the respondents brought another ejectment application on the ground of default. We have perused the impugned judgment with the assistance of the learned counsel. Even after the rent was increased and the previous ejectment petition was withdrawn, the petitioners were defaulters and, therefore, subsequent ejectment petition was filed. The findings of fact of the Court
---
## Page 2
of the Rent Controller as well as High Court are that the petitioners were defaulters. In that view of the matter it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. The petition is accordingly dismissed.