Mst. HAFEEZ BEGUM AND Others, vs ABDUS SATTAR
This matter arises from a petition where the petitioner failed to pay rent for three consecutive months, thereby committing a breach of the Rent Controller's order dated 10th May 1980 which had granted protection against ejectment for eight years. The core legal question was whether the Executing Court could go behind the terms of the original rent order based on the petitioner's plea that the respondent agreed to collect the rent personally. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Executing Court could not go behind the clear stipulations of the order and that the petitioner, having breached the order, was not entitled to any relief. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot excuse non-compliance with a judicial order by relying on oral understandings contrary to the express terms of that order, and an executing court cannot look behind the decree or order being executed.
- Can an executing court go behind the terms of an order passed by a Rent Controller?
- Does failure to pay rent in accordance with a conditional protection order disentitle a tenant to relief against ejectment?
- Is a tenant's plea that the landlord promised to collect rent personally a valid defense against a breach of a specific rent payment order?
ORDER
1. MUHAMNAD HALEEM, ACTG., C. J.-The petitioner failed to pay the rent for three consecutive months, and, accordingly, committed a breach of the order of the Rent Controller dated the 10th of May, 1980, by which he was granted protection against ejectment for 8 years. His case before the Executing Court was that the respondent himself had told him that he would collect the rent on his visit to the shop, and it was, thereafter, that the rent was not paid. This was not the stipulation in the order dated the 10th of May, 1980, and, therefore the Executing Court could not go behind it. The petitioner himself committed a breach of the order and he is not entitled to any relief. The petition is dismissed as without substance.