Sh. MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Others vs Kh. MUHAMMAD RASHID VINE
This appeal by leave of the court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants' Second Appeal from Order arising from proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. When the matter was called out, counsel for the appellants ultimately did not press the appeal on merits, instead requesting a period of two months to vacate the premises, coupled with an undertaking to deliver vacant possession to the respondent-landlord by a specified date and to pay advance rent for the intervening period. The counsel for the respondent-landlord consented to this arrangement upon the stated conditions. The Supreme Court accordingly granted the appellants two months' time to vacate the premises and surrender possession in accordance with their undertaking. The core legal question concerned the execution of the eviction order and the accommodation of the tenant's request for time to vacate based on mutual agreement. The court held that the time extension be granted subject to the strict fulfillment of the undertakings given by the appellants. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may dispose of rent matters in terms of lawful undertakings and mutual concessions agreed upon by the contesting parties.
- Whether an appellate court can grant time to vacate premises based on an undertaking given by the tenant?
- Can an appeal under the rent laws be disposed of in terms of a mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant regarding vacation time?
- West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 21-3-1973, dismissing appellants' S.A.O. In a case under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
2. The case was called out at 10-40 a.m. But no one has appeared to press the appeal.
3. Subsequently Raja Muhammad Anwar appeared for the appellants. He did not press the petition on merits but only argued that since the premises in question was a shop, 2 months time may be granted to the appellants to enable them to vacate the premises in question. He stated that the appellants undertake to deliver the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent-landlord on 1-7-1985 and that they (appellants) shall pay rent for these two months to the respondent landlord, in advance.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has agreed to the grant of 2 months time to the appellants on the aforementioned conditions.
Two months' time is, therefore, given to the appellants. They are required to vacate the house on 1- 7-1985 and pay the rent to the landlord as undertaken by them.
No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.