ABDUL GHANI AND 4 OTHERS vs Mst. SAIDA NAIM HUSSAIN
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court regarding an ejectment matter where the relationship of landlord and tenant was held not to be established. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the parties reached a formal compromise. The core legal question involved the resolution of the tenancy dispute between the appellants and the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the compromise entered into by the parties constitutes a just and fair disposal of the dispute. Consequently, the Court disposed of and allowed the appeal in terms of the agreed compromise, wherein a third party was accepted as the tenant on specified terms, and directed the execution of a regular lease-deed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
- Whether an appeal can be disposed of in terms of a compromise reached between the parties before the Supreme Court?
- Can parties mutually agree to substitute a new tenant and execute a regular lease-deed to resolve a pending tenancy dispute?
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-1-1976 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court at Karachi, whereby he reversing the judgment of the Rent Controller, as affirmed by the Additional District Judge, allowed the appeal of the respondent on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenants was not established.
2. During the course of the proceedings before us, the parties have entered ( into a compromise and request that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of A the said compromise (copy whereof has been placed on record).
3. ' According to the terms of the compromise entered into between the patties, the appellants have agreed to accept the brother of respondent No, 1, Syed Ahmed Hussain, Advocate, as their tenant of the premises in question and the respondent, Mst. Saida Naim Hussain, has agreed that her brother Syed Ahmad Hasnain may be accepted as the sole tenant of the appellants. The above-named tenant, Syed Ahmad Hasnain, will pay a rent of Rs, 200 per month to the appellants with effect from the date of the compromise i,e, 26-1-1984.
4. ' The counsel of the respondent, Mst. Saida Naim Hussain, i,e, Syed Ahmad Hasnain, afore- mentioned, is authorised to withdraw the rent of the premises deposited in Court by the respondent, as per lower Court's order and shall pay the said amount of rent to the appellants within one month to them.
5. ' A regular lease-deed will be executed, between the appellants and Syed Ahmad Hasnain, wherein the terms and conditions agreed upon and mentioned above will be incorporated.
6. ' The appellants, in view of the above compromise, agree to withdraw the present appeal.
7. ' This compromise, entered between the parties, appears to us to be a just and fair disposal of the dispute between the parties. We, accordingly, are inclined to accept it and do hereby allow this appeal in terms of the compromise mentioned above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Cited by 28 cases
- Trading Corporation of Pakistan vs Sadan General Trading LLC & another 2024 SHC 1354, 2025 CLC 525
- TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Versus SADAN GENERAL TRADING LLC through Local Agent KZK Industrial & Commercial Co. 2025 CLC 525
- Municipal Committee etc. vs Jam Brothers 2024 LHC 1152, 2025 PLJ Lahore 216
- Shahin Shah vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Irrigation Department, Peshawar and others_ 2022 SCP 269, 2023 PLJ 155, 2022 SCMR 1810
- Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd vs Pakistan National Shipping Corporation 2021 CLC 761, 2020 SHC 1394
- Barkat Ali (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Tanvir Abbas Tabish and others 2020 SCMR 850
- Al-Hassan Tech E Eng SVC (Pvt) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others 2021 CLC 666, 2020 SHC 184
- Iran Central Iron ORE Company vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation 2021 YLR 613, 2020 SHC 182
- National Highway Authority through Director (Legal) vs Lilley International 2021 PLJ Islamabad 12, 2020 CLC 608, 2022 [M] CLR 1387, KLR 2022 Civil
- National Highway Authority vs Lilley International (Private) Limited and another 2019 IHC 202
- ENGRO FERTILIZERS LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad 2014 CLD 132
- PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LIMITED vs Messrs INTERCONSTRUCT 2010 PLD Peshawar 34
- GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. vs SHAHIN SHAH and others 2009 MLD 1418
- JAMIA MASJID QAZI ABDUL QADIR AND DARUL ALOOM HAQANIA QADRIA 2009 SCMR 1418
- SEZAI TURKES FEYZI AKKAYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHIDefendant 2007 CLC 879
- ABDULLAH CONTRACTORS vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2006 YLR 589
- S.M.I. BROTHERS through Managing Partner vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MURREE through Administrator 2003 CLC 419
- Rais CHIRAGHUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM 2001 YLR 2162
- UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY Through Vice Chancellor, Lahore vs Messrs MODERATE BUILDERS Through A. Qutabuddin 2001 MLD 233
- S. ALTAF HUSSAIN vs DUTY FREE SHOPS (PVT.) LIMITED 2000 YLR 2021
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And 2 Others vs Mirza MUHAMMAD LATIF 1996 MLD 1115
- M/S. M.A. KHAN & CO. vs (M/S.) PAKISTAN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES, CO- K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases l2
- MA. KHAN & CO vs PAKISTAN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' COOPERATIVE HOUSING 1996 CLC 45
- Dr. Mrs. AZRA ALI vs ARIF ALI 1993 PLD Karachi 683
- Engro Fertilizers Limited (formerly known as Exxon Chemical Pakistan
- Export Promotion Bureau vs Dadabhoy Padube Limited and Siddiqsons
- JAMIA MASJID QAZI ABDUL QADIR & DARUL ALOOM HAQANIA QADRIA QUETTA 2009 PLJ SC 916
- Shahin Shah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Irrigation Department, Peshawar and others 2023 PLJ SC 155