MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs Ch. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 3 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a sub-tenant against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether an order of eviction or adverse proceedings can be passed against a sub-tenant when the main tenant remains absent from the proceedings, and whether an occupant maintaining an ambiguous status can seek discretionary relief. The Supreme Court held that accepting such an extraordinary plea would allow sub-tenants to benefit through the absence of the main tenant, which was never the intention of the law. Furthermore, the Court held that a dishonest occupant attempting to retain possession of property through illegal means loses the right to obtain discretionary relief in constitutional writ jurisdiction or before the Supreme Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
- Whether an order can be passed against a sub-tenant when the main tenant remains away from the proceedings?
- Does a dishonest occupant seeking to retain possession through illegal means lose the right to obtain discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a sub-tenant, against the dismissal of his Writ Petition by the High Court.
2. Learned counsel has contended that the main tenant having remained away from the proceedings no order against the petitioner could have been passed even if he was adjudged as a sub-tenant.
3. It is an extraordinary plea. If accepted the main tenant would not attend the proceedings and the sub-tenants would get away with ill-gotten gains. This was never the intention of law whether substantive or procedural.
4. Moreover there is an additional factor in this case. When questioned as to what is the position and status of the petitioner in the property in question the counsel answered that he is an "occupant" thereof. He has not taken the position of his being an owner, a trespasser, a tenant or an alienee, in any form. In a recent order we have ruled that a dishonest tenant who wants to retain the possession of a property through illegal means, loses his right to obtain discretionary relief either in writ jurisdiction of the High Court or before the Supreme Court in its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal. And indeed this principle would apply to every exercise of discretion elsewhere as well. This rule fully applies to the petitioner also. Leave, in the circumstances of this case, is refused.