MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs ABDUL GHAFFAR and others
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from concurrent orders of ejectment passed against the appellant tenant on the ground of bona fide personal use of the shop by the landlord. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was willing to surrender vacant possession of the premises and not press the appeal, provided reasonable time was granted to vacate. Counsel for the respondents agreed to grant time until the 1st of May, 1984, for the appellant to make alternative arrangements. The appellant personally undertook to vacate the premises voluntarily by the stipulated date, without necessitating execution proceedings, and agreed to continue paying monthly rent during the interim period. The Supreme Court found the amicable settlement acceptable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, while allowing the appellant to retain possession until the agreed date subject to the strict observance of the terms of the settlement.
- Whether an appeal against an ejectment order can be dismissed as not pressed upon an amicable settlement between the landlord and tenant?
- Can the Supreme Court grant extended time to a tenant for vacating commercial premises based on a voluntary undertaking?
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The appellant took Shop No, L/84-B(3)/701-B, Kasamabad, Rawalpindi on lease from Fateh Muhammad, now dead and represented by his legal representatives, in the year 1961.
2. ' Sometime in 1969, Fateh Muhammad applied to the Rent Controller for the ejectment of the appellant from the said shop on the ground that he needed it bona fide for his personal use. This plea was accepted and the appellant herein ordered to deliver possession of the shop to the landlord. His appeal against the said order to the Additional District Judge and his second appeal to the High Court having failed hence the present appeal by leave of this Court.
3. ' Mr. Samad Mahmood, learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that he is prepared to deliver possession of the shop to the respondents and would not press the appeal if he is given some further time to vacate it. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Gulzarin Kiani submitted that the respondents are prepared to allow further period of for months for making alternative arrangement and to hand over vacant possession of the shop before 1st of May, 1984. The appellant has accepted this offer. He undertakes to vacate the shop voluntarily without constraining the respondents to have resort to execution proceedings, by 1st May, 1984. He has further agreed to pay the monthly rent during this period.
4. ' We consider that this amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties can be accepted.
5. The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed as not pressed but the appellant is allowed to remain in the shop until 1st of May, 1984. He shall deliver the vacant possession of the shop before the said date to the respondents voluntarily and shall continue to pay the monthly rent upto the said date.