MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN KHATTAK Versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF PAKISTAN

Mohammad Ali Khan Khattak and others, petitioners herein, are owners of the bangalow No.25 situate on Jamaluddin Afghani Road, University Town, Peshawar, Regional Director, Geological Survey of Pakistan, respondent No.1 herein, was in need of a suitable building for his office. He approached the petitioners for this purpose and asked the petitioner No.1 to submit his willingness to rent out the bungalow to the respondents whereupon the petitioners No.1 conveyed on 9-4-1979 the willingness of the petitioners to rent out their bungalow to the respondents for monthly rent of Rs.7,000. After the receipt of this willingness the respondent No.1 on 10-4-1979 asked the Executive Engineer Pak. P.W.D. to assess the rent of the bungalow in dispute as well as its suitability for the purpose of the office accommodation of the respondent No.1. However, the respondent No.1 did not occupy the said bungalow whereupon it was rented out by the petitioners to some other persons and as the bungalow was lying vacant from 9-4-1979 to 9-7-1979 the petitioners claimed from the respondents Rs.21,000 as rent for the said period or in the alternative they claimed the said amount as damages and instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Peshawar on 17-7-1979. The respondents contested the suit and their defence was that it was the petitioner No.1 who had himself offered his bungalow on rent to them and that no such offer had been made by them to the petitioners, that the procedure was that assessment of rent had to be made by officers of the Pak. P.W.D. and without that assessment and sanction from the Government they could not occupy the bungalow and that they were not liable to pay any rent etc. to the petitioners. The respondents had further contended in the written statement that this procedure was also known to petitioner No.1 who was a retired officer of the P.W.D. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the suit is within time?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs estopped to bring the present suit?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of the suit amount?

(5) Relief.

After recording evidence as produced by the parties the learned trial Judge decided issues Nos.2 and 4 against the petitioners herein and dismissed their suit vide judgment dated 14-6-1984. The appeal filed by the petitioners, was also dismissed by Mr. Mohammad Irshad, Additional District Judge, Peshawar by judgment dated 28-4-1985. Bith the learned lower Courts held that offer to rent out by the bungalow was made by the petitioners to the respondents by document Ex.PW3/2 and there was no acceptance on behalf of the respondents, hence there was no contract between the parties and the petitioners were not entitled to claim any rent or damages.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length who have also led me through the record of the case.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the willingness shown by the petitioners on 9-4-1979 by document, copy Ex.PW.3/2, was in fact in response to the suggestion made by the respondent No.l to them with regard to the hiring of their bungalow, and although there was nothing in black and white in this respect but the wording of the document, copy Ex.PW.3/2, would clearly indicate that it was in response to some suggestion coming out from the opposite side. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondents has urged that no such indication was given by the respondents and the petitioners coming to know from some quarters themselves showed their willingness to rent out the bungalow to them. As such the question requiring determination is, whether any offer was made by the respondents and document, Ex.PW.3/2 indicates the acceptance thereof by the petitioners for a consideration of Rs.7,000 as monthly rent or the document is an offer to the respondent who has not conveyed any acceptance thereof or there was a conditional acceptance by the respondents to that offer subject to the clearance of the P.W.D. with regard to the amount of rent and the suitability of the building for the purpose of the respondents. In order to determine this point it is essential to analyse the contents of the document, Ex.PW.3/2. For the proper appreciation of this point the contents of the document are reproduced below:-

"I am willing to rent out our Bungalow No.25, Syed Jamaluddin Afghani Road, University Town, Peshawar, on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000 (Rupees seven thousand only) per month to the Geological Survey of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan, Peshawar, provided one year advance rent is given to me at the time of lease."

4. The minute perusal of the aforesaid contents of document, Ex.P.W.3/2, would indicate that the petitioners had shown their willingness to rent out their bungalow to the respondents on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000 with one year advance rent to be given to them at the time of lease. The petitioners would not know that the respondents were in need of accommodation for their office and somebody must have informed them whereupon they showed their willingness. No written information, in this respect is available on record. The petitioners have also not produced any evidence to show as actually who had conveyed that information to them or as contended by their learned counsel that the respondent No.1 had actually made an oral offer to the petitioners to get their bungalow on hire in response to which they showed their willingness. Although the document indicates the willingness of the petitioners which would show that it was in response to some offer but the wording of this document is very significant. It shows that the petitioners were willing to, rent out their bungalow on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000 to the Geological Survey of Pakistan provided one year advance rent was given to them at the time of lease. The aforesaid contents of this document, when analysed, would show that actually it is an offer from the side of the petitioners rent out their bungalow to the respondents for a monthly rent of Rs.7,000 and it . appears that this offer was acceptable to the respondents on the condition that there was a clearance by the P.W.D regarding the amount of rent and the suitability of the building for office accommodation. This analysis would be supported by the letter dated 10-4-1979 copy Ex.PW.3/3, of the respondent No-1 to the, Executive Engineer, Pak. P.W.D. for assessment of rent of the; bungalow. The contents of this letter would show that 'there was actually no offer from the respondents to hire the bungalow but on the contrary an offer was made in this respect by the petitioners which was to be accepted by the respondents after the assessment of rent by the P.W.D and consent by the owner for renting out the bungalow. It shall thus be seen that the offer had in fact originated from the side of the petitioners and not from the respondents and they had shown their conditional willingness to accept the offer subject to clearance by the P. W. D. Actually the proposal had come from the side of the petitioners and not from the side of the respondents and the proposal being of a contract had to be accepted by the respondents and there is nothing on the record to prove that the latter had conveyed any acceptance to the former. Even otherwise the documents produced in evidence by the petitioners themselves would indicate that the respondent No.1 had not conveyed any acceptance to the said proposal. The letter, copy Ex.PW.3/3, would clearly indicate that in response to the proposal made by the petitioners they intended to carry out some preliminary proceedings before conveying their acceptance to the proposal and in fact no actual acceptance of the proposal had emanated from the side of the respondents. Neither any formal agreement of tenancy had been completed between the parties nor the respondents occupied the bungalow. As such no binding contract had come into existence between the parties and in the absence of that the petitioners are not entitled to claim recovery of rent or any damages.

5. Both the learned lower Courts have arrived at the aforesaid finding unanimously which does not call for any interference by this Court. There is no merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M.Y.H./574/P

Petition dismissed.