A.D.MALIK vs ABDUL HAMEED and others
This matter arises from a long-standing dispute between the parties regarding the occupation of a shop. The core legal question concerns the settlement of the tenancy dispute through a voluntary compromise agreement between the petitioner-tenant and the contesting respondent-landlord. The Supreme Court of Pakistan recorded the statements of the learned counsel for both parties, wherein the petitioner agreed to vacate the shop voluntarily by a specified date, and the respondent agreed to let the petitioner remain in possession until that date upon the continued payment of monthly rent, without the need for execution proceedings. The court held that the petition should be disposed of in terms of the voluntary compromise and undertaking given by the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that parties can amicably resolve tenancy disputes before the court through binding undertakings to vacate premises by a date certain without requiring execution proceedings.
- Can parties settle a tenancy dispute before the Supreme Court through a compromise regarding the vacation of premises?
- Whether a tenant can be bound by an undertaking given to the court to voluntarily vacate a shop by a specific date?
ORDER
1. ' The parties have entered into a compromise with a view to settling their long-standing dispute amicably. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner, after consulting his client, stated that in case the petitioner is allowed to remain in occupation of the shop upto 30-5-1990 he shall have no objection to vacating the shop voluntarily. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent stated that the respondent agreed to the petitioner continuing in possession of the shop provided he continued to pay the monthly rent and vacated the shop voluntarily on the said date without the respondent being obliged to have recourse to execution proceedings.
2. ' The learned counsel for the parties, as already stated, after consulting their clients again agree to abide by these terms.
3. The result is that the petitioner is permitted to continue in possession of the shop till 30-5-1990; thereafter he shall vacate the shop without recourse to execution proceedings, in accordance with the undertaking given before us.
4. ' The petition is disposed of in the above terms.