MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition in a rent matter. The dispute originated when the respondent filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance on the ground of default. The petitioner denied the existence of a landlord and tenant relationship between himself and the respondent, despite having expressly pleaded in earlier eviction proceedings initiated by a third party that he was in fact a tenant of the respondent. The Rent Controller and appellate courts relied on his prior admission and ordered his eviction. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether a party who takes contradictory positions in successive legal proceedings is entitled to equitable relief in constitutional jurisdiction or leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having blown hot and cold by adopting inconsistent stances whenever suited to him, was disentitled by his conduct from receiving discretionary relief. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a party taking inconsistent and contradictory stances in successive legal proceedings is entitled to discretionary constitutional relief?
- Can a prior admission of a landlord and tenant relationship made in earlier proceedings be relied upon to order eviction in subsequent proceedings?
- Does a party's conduct of blowing hot and cold disentitle them to the grant of leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Section 13, Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 13- 4-1981, dismissing petitioner's writ petition in a rent matter.
2. The facts of the case, shorne of unnecessary detail are briefly as follows;--- Plots of land, numbering 69, 75, 81, 82 acid 90, situated in Jhelum, were purchased in auction by one Muhammad Tufail, but on 28.5-1969, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, declared Plots Nos. 69 and 75 as evacuee in their entirety. The house in question is built on portion of these plots and was occupied by the petitioner. Muhammad Tufail flied a writ petition against the said order of the Deputy Custodian and declared Muhammad Tufail, as owner of the said plots. One Nazir Ahmad, who had been allotted these plots by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department as evacuee property, filed a Civil Petition for leave to Appeal in this Court, which still pending, on 5-5-1971, the aforementioned Nazir Ahmadi filed an ejectment application for eviction of Muhammad Hussain from the house built on the said plots. During those proceedings Muhammad Hussain, petitioner, took up the position that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between Nazir Ahmad and himself, because he was, in fact, tenant of Muhammad Tufail (respondent herein). The learned Rent Controller, ordered Muhammad Hussain's eviction but stayed the operation of his order till the decision of Nazir Ahmad's Petition for Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court. Muhammad Hussain, petitioner, filed an appeal against this order before the District Judge, which was dismissed on 1.5- 3-1975. He then filed an S. A. O. Which too, was dismissed, thereafter, Muhammad Tufail filed an ejectment application against Muhammad Hussain, petitioner from the same house under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, on the ground of default.. Muhammad Hussain denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between Muhammad Tufail and himself, although tie had stated in the earlier proceedings that he was in fact, tenant of Muhammad Tufail. After recording the evidence on existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, and tenant the learned rent Controller, decided the income against him and ordered his eviction. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed. Since the right of second appeal had by then been taken away, he then challenged the order of the District Judge through a Writ Petition (No. 1873 of 1981), which too, was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
Hence the present petition.
3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Courts below while deciding issue of landlord and tenant between Muhammad Tufail and the petitioner, had relied on his (Muhammad Hussain's) own statement in the earlier proceedings that he was Muhammad Tufail's tenant. He urged that his statement in the earlier pro--ceedings could not have beenrelied in the subsequent proceedings.
4. Whatever may be the merit of this contention in law, one thing is evident that the petitioner has been blowing hot and cold in the same breath, and has been taking different contradictory positions as and when suited to him. In view of his conduct he was entitled to any relief by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. For the same reason he is no entitled to grant of Leave to Appeal by this Court.
This petition is, therefore, dismissed.