HYDERABAD MEMON ANJUMAN vs DIVAN KEWALRAM
This petition arises out of a suit for possession decreed against the petitioner, which was subsequently compromised on appeal, allowing the petitioner to retain possession until a specified date upon payment of rent and an undertaking to vacate. Upon the petitioner's failure to vacate, execution proceedings were initiated by the respondent. The core legal question is whether a compromise decree in a possession suit that provides for the payment of rent and an undertaking to vacate creates a relationship of landlord and tenant, thereby attracting the bar against ejectment under urban rent restriction laws. The Supreme Court held that the compromise merely granted time to the petitioner to remain in possession and did not create a tenancy relationship, leaving the decree for possession fully executable. The key principle laid down is that terms of a compromise providing time to vacate and payment of rent in lieu thereof do not alter the underlying nature of a possession decree or create a landlord-tenant relationship.
- Does a compromise in a possession suit creating an obligation to pay rent establish a landlord and tenant relationship?
- Is a decree for possession executable when a judgment debtor fails to vacate the premises by the date agreed upon in a compromise?
- Do urban rent restriction laws apply to a judgment debtor granted time to vacate under a compromise decree?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance 1970
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED,J---This petition arises out of a suit for possession which had been decreed against the petitioner by the trial court but on appeal the matter was compromised between the parties on certain terms. Inter alia it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner should pay rent of the portion of the plot in dispute at the rate of Rs.10 per month from the Ist September 1958 to the Ist July 1965 and to continue to pay the same rent till the date of vacating the plot. The petitioner also agreed to vacate the premises in dispute and remove the construction if any on or before the 31 of March 1967. In default he was liable to eviction in accordance with the decree of the court. Furthermore, the petitioner undertook not to put up any further structure.
2. Admittedly, there was no relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties prior to the said compromise. It may also be noted that the decree for possession was not set aside.
3. The petitioner having failed to vacate the premises by the 31st of March 196'7, as agreed to, the respondent-decree-holder started execution proceedings, but was unsuccessful in the executing Court as well as in his appeal to the District Judge. The respondent, thereafter, approached the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, as it then was on second appeal and the High Court, too, dismissed the appeal in limine.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that although there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties previously, yet by virtue of the compromise a relationship of landlord and tenant was created and as such the parties were bound by the terms of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, section 13 of which debars the ejectment of the tenant. The High Court did not agree with this contention. All the three Courts including the Highst Court have held that the compromise merely gave time to the petitioner to continue in possession uptill 31st March 1967 and did not create any relationship of landlord and tenant. This concession was granted subject to payment of rent and taxes. It is difficult to accept the contention that the respondent voluntarily wished to forego the advantage he had gained and to defeat the decree for possession which he had already succeeded in obtaining. In these circumstances the question of the application of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, 1970 (sic) does not arise.
5. There is no question of public importance involved in the case. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- Muhammad Tahir etc vs Rasheed Khan and others 2024 PLJ Quetta 26
- The Province of Sindh and another vs Mst. Rasheeda Begum 2020 SHC 1262
- Mrs. Azra Riaz vs Addl. District Judge & others 2020 LHC 3278, 2021 CLC 623
- Khatoon Bibi (Late) through L.Rs vs Mst. Attia Ishaque and 2 others 2021 CLC 605, 2021 PLJ Karachi 46
- Khatoon Bibi through L.Rs. and Attorney vs Mst. Attia Ishaque and 2 others 2021 CLC 605
- QASIM ALI vs Mst. SAKINA AND Other 1973 SCMR 307