Mst. RAFIA KHANUM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, OKARA and others
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of a tenancy dispute between a landlady and her tenant. During the appellate proceedings, the learned counsel for both contesting parties jointly submitted that an out-of-court settlement had been reached and tendered a signed Deed of Compromise alongside a shaded site plan demarcating the disputed property. Under the terms of the settlement, the tenant agreed to deliver vacant possession of the shop to the landlady by a specified date, while the landlady undertook to reconstruct the premises per a sanctioned plan and deliver vacant possession of two newly-constructed ground-floor shops and a first-floor gallery back to the tenant by a subsequent stipulated deadline. The Supreme Court examined the settlement, confirmed that it was neither unlawful nor unfair, and held it to be mutually beneficial for both parties. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal strictly in accordance with the terms of the compromise deed and directed that the site plan be treated as an integral part of the judgment.
- Whether an appeal can be disposed of in terms of an out-of-court Deed of Compromise signed by counsel for both parties?
- Can a site plan produced with a compromise deed be incorporated as an integral part of the court's judgment?
- What standard must the court satisfy regarding fairness and legality before accepting a compromise between a landlord and a tenant?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Both the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal have stated that the contesting parties have settled the matter out of the Court. They have also produced a Deed of Compromise in the Court which is duly signed by the learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The compromise is also accompanied by a site plan wherein the subject-matter of the compromise has been shaded in red pencil. The compromise reads as follows - "1. That the parties abovenamed have arrived at the following compromise.
(i) That respondent No,3 (Muhammad Afzal son of Gulzar Muhammad) the tenant, will deliver vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the petitioner on or before 31-12-1988.
(ii) That in consideration of the compromise the petitioner (Mst. Rafia Khanum) will deliver the possession of 2 newly-constructed shops at ground floor (measuring 7.4.1/2" x 1.9" each) alongwith newly-constructed gallery at the first floor to be constructed over and above the 2 shops hereinbefore mentioned on the Southern side of the newly-constructed passage (shown red in the sketch) to Respondent No,3. It is agreed that after obtaining possession, the petitioner/landlady will reconstruct new shops and passage, according to the sanctioned plan, till 30-6-1989 and will deliver vacant possession: of the two abovementioned, newly-constructed shops alongwith gallery to the respondent No,3 on or before 30-6-1989."
3. After hearing both the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the compromise is for benefit of both the sides. It is neither unlawful nor unfair. This appeal accordingly is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid compromise. The abovementioned site plan shall be deemed as a part of the compromise and this judgment for all purposes including the certified copies. There shall be no order as to costs.