Mst. HASSAN BANO and 3 others vs Mrs. MUMTAZ YOUNUS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order of the High Court granting a stay of ejectment in favor of the petitioners subject to the condition of depositing arrears of rent dating back to November 1971 and ongoing monthly rent. The core legal question raised was whether the High Court acted without jurisdiction in imposing a condition to pay arrears of rent beyond the three-year period of limitation prior to the impugned order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that even if a technical jurisdictional objection or limitation bar exists, the grant of leave to appeal is discretionary and depends on the fitness of the case and the conduct of the parties. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary relief under Article 185 of the Constitution or similar appellate jurisdiction will be denied to litigants who do not approach the court with clean hands, particularly where the liability for rent relates to a period during which protracted litigation was pending at the behest of the petitioner.
- Whether an appellate court can impose the deposit of historical rent arrears as a condition for granting a stay of ejectment?
- Does the bar of limitation automatically render an interim condition for the deposit of rent arrears without jurisdiction?
- Is the Supreme Court bound to grant leave to appeal against every interim order found to be technically without jurisdiction?
- Does a litigant who prolongs litigation and withholds rent qualify for discretionary relief without clean hands?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought against an interim order passed by the High Court in a pending appeal regarding grant of stay of petitioners' ejectment on the condition of payment of arrears of rent.
2. ' The impugned order reads as follows: "There is an ejectment order passed against the present appellant by the Rent Controller in 1972 which was upheld even at the stage of the Supreme Court. After having lost in the Supreme Court, a suit has been filed by the present appellant for declaration that the ejectment order was bad in law. In the above suit at the appellate stage plaint was rejected by the Appellate Court. Against the aforesaid order the present appeal has been filed. The appellant No,1 has also filed a suit for specific performance in this Court on the basis of some alleged sale agreement.
3. ' Since the appellants are seeking a stay order against the ejectment and as admittedly no rent has been paid since November, 1971, I would grant the stay subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the arrears of rent from November, 1971 at the rate of Rs, 600 per month with the Nazir of this Court within a period of three mono ;. The appellant shall also deposit the current rent at he above rate. The rent for the month of Augast is to be deposited on or before 10th of September and thereafter on or before 10th of each month with the Nazir of this Court.
4. ' The application stands disposed of in the above terms."
5. 'Learned counsel while pressing this petition for leave to appeal has contended that the impugned order having been passed on 9-8-1987, the condition of payment of arrears of rent could be imposed only with regard to three years period prior thereto i.e, not beyond 9-8-1984, Therefore, the condition regarding payment of rent since November, 1971, was without jurisdiction.
6. ' When questioned as to whether the petitioner denies liability regarding payment of rent since November, 1971 on facts or only on account of bar of limitation, the 'learned counsel stated that it was on account of bar of limitation only.
7. 'It is not denied that even if an order is without jurisdiction it is not always necessary to grant leave to appeal. This besides other considerations also depends upon the fitness of a case. There is an additional circumstance in this case. Admittedly the proceedings were started against the petitioner prior to 1971, therefore, the recovery of rent being objected to would be relatable to the period when the proceedings were pending before a legal forum and the petitioner was also seeking aid of law for adjudication of the dispute.
8. ' In these circumstances we are of the view that the petitioners have not sought relief of grant of leave to appeal with clean hands. It is not a fit case for grant thereof. The same, therefore, is refused.
Cited by 7 cases
- Syed Mansoor Ali Shah vs Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi 2023 SCMR 636
- HASSAN JAMEEL ANSARI and anothers vs NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY 2012 YLR 2809
- Messrs BRITISH BISCUITS COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED vs Messrs ATLAS 2005 CLD 674
- Messrs BRITISH BISCUITS COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED vs Messrs ATLAS 2005 SCMR 671
- AHMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 888
- LIAQUAT ALI MAGHERI and others vs THE STATE 1999 P Cr. L J 65
- GUL MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STATE 2001 P Cr. L J 1534