RAHIMUDDIN Versus NAZIRUDDIN

MUHAMM‑AD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑A tenant has sought leave to appeal in a rent restriction matter. The learned counsel states that the petitioner having failed throughout, he has handed over possession to a third person and according to him he would continue further fight before the executing Court. Therefore, this petition should be disposed of as having become infructuous. We do not agree with him. This petition merits to be dismissed otherwise, as the petitioner has no case.

2. An eviction application was moved against the petitioner under the Rent Restriction Law. It was dismissed on the basis of an alleged agreement of sale asserted with the observation that they could seek other remedies. A suit for possession was then filed against the petitioner which was decreed. The petitioner's appeal failed and his civil revision before the High Court also failed. Therefore, he filed this petition for leave to appeal.

3. It appears to be a classic case of the process of Court being misused. After having lost before the Civil Court, the petitioner according to the statement of the learned counsel himself, now wants to prolong the litigation further by handing over the possession to the third party. We cannot but deprecate this practice. The executing court might, however, take note of it. We would avoid any further comment. This petition with the foregoing observation is dismissed.

M . Y . H . / R ‑61 / S Petition dismissed.