HASSAN MASUD MALIK Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL

ORDER

MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J. ‑‑‑Hassan Masud Malik, petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal against order dated 1‑2‑1994, of the Lahore High Court, whereby Writ Petition No. 1698 of 1990 filed by him was dismissed.

2. The respondents Nos. 1 to 6 on 4‑5‑1985, filed a petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the property in dispute occupied by him as tenant under them. It appears that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, on 29‑9‑1985, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, whereby the petitioner agreed to retain the property up to December, 1987 at an enhanced rent of Rs.3,000/3,500 per month. The landlord agreed to withdraw the ejectment petition. In pursuance of the aforementioned compromise deed learned counsel for the parties made statement before the Rent Controller and the learned Rent Controller passed order to the following effect:‑‑

On 2‑3‑1988, an application was filed for execution of the aforesaid order. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 27‑10‑1989 held that the order dated 2‑10‑1985, had modified the terms of tenancy and therefore became inexecutable.

3. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of the Rent Controller and held, the order dated 2‑10‑1985, executable. He accordingly remanded the case to the Rent Controller for necessary action. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the first appellate authority the petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through the abovementioned writ petition which was dismissed as aforesaid.

4. In support of this petition learned counsel for petitioner contended that as per statement of the learned counsel for respondents before the Rent Controller the ejectment petition merited dismissal on 12‑10‑1985. It was further contended that by agreement dated 29‑9‑1985, a new tenancy came into existence between the parties, therefore, the petitioner could not have been ejected from the property in dispute.

5. Undoubtedly the petitioner had agreed to vacate the premises in dispute in December, 1987, therefore, he could not wriggle out of the undertaking given by him. The Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 being discretionary cannot be exercised in favour of a person who is reluctant to abide by the undertaking given by him. The learned Single Judge in Chambers was right in declining to grant relief to the petitioner who is, not prepared to abide by his own commitment made in writing. The learned Rent Controller was wrong not to execute the order dated 2‑10‑1985, passed on the basis of the compromise reached between the parties.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

AA./H‑204/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.