Hafiz ABDUR REHMAN vs Mst. BIRJEES BEGUM And Another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed the respondent's constitutional petition regarding the transfer of an evacuee shop. The petitioner, who was in possession of the shop, had previously accepted the transfer of the property to the respondent in multiple eviction proceedings, thereby acknowledging his status as a statutory tenant and entering into compromises to obtain concessions. Instead of vacating the premises as agreed, the petitioner applied for and obtained a transfer order for the same shop under a different number. The High Court set aside this transfer. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's repeated admissions of the respondent's ownership in solemn court proceedings could not be ignored. The Court ruled that because the petitioner sought to take undue advantage of the time granted to him by the landlady, he was not entitled to the discretionary relief of leave to appeal.
- Can a tenant who has repeatedly admitted the landlord's title in solemn court proceedings subsequently challenge that title to obtain a transfer of the same property?
- Whether the Supreme Court will exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to a party who has acted in bad faith by violating a court-approved compromise?
- Does a party's admission of ownership in eviction proceedings estop them from seeking a fresh transfer of the same property under a different identification number?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 14-5-1980 whereby respondent's constitutional petition arising out of a dispute regarding an evacuee shop was allowed, has been brought to challenge through this petition for leave to appeal.
2. A shop in possession of the petitioner was made the subject-matter of several eviction petitions filed from the respondent side against him on the basis that it stood transferred to that party. Each the the petitioner while accepting the said transfer and its effect of his having become a statutory tenant, entered into compromise with the landlady and obtained concessions. The last concession was that he was to remain in possession only till 29th of September, 1974. He, however, instead of honouring that commitment submitted a form for transfer of the shop in his possession and obtained a transfer order on 25th January, 1974 in his favour whereby it was treated as a different shop. It was given a fresh No. 112-A and was transferred to the petitioner on the basis of his possession. The respondent challenged the transfer in the High Court through a Constitutional petition which was allowed.
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition have vehemently raised to-fold contentions: One, that the petitioner was not bound by his admissions in so far as the realities about the shop in dispute are concerned; and, to, that notwithstanding the admissions of the petitioner the findings of fact reached by the Settlement Authority in the fresh order, dated 25th of January, 1974, have been annulled by the High Court without finding any serious fault with them.
4. Grant of leave to appeal by this Court is within discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. The fact that the petitioner admitted the respondent as landlady in several proceedings and treated the transfer to her of the property in dispute as valid in solemn proceedings before Courts of law, are not such admissions which can be ignored in a discretionary jurisdiction. He tried to take undue advantage of the the allowed to him by the landlady and got the matter re-opened which had finally been settled in accordance with his own admissions. In these circumstances we do not consider it a fit case nor the petitioner a fit person for the grant of discretionary relief by grant of leave to appeal. The petition accordingly is dismissed.