MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and 2 others
This matter originated as an appeal by a tenant against eviction orders, which had been previously upheld by the High Court. Upon the grant of leave to appeal, the parties presented a deed of compromise before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The compromise agreement, signed by both the appellant and the respondent along with their respective legal counsel, stipulated that the appellant would vacate the disputed shop by a specific date. Furthermore, the respondent undertook to occupy the premises and commence business within the statutory period, with a default clause providing that failure to do so would result in the immediate restoration of the appellant's tenancy under the existing terms and conditions. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the compromise and finding it to be genuine, determined there were no legal impediments to its acceptance. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in terms of the compromise, effectively disposing of the matter without an order as to costs, thereby affirming the validity of private settlements in tenancy disputes when voluntarily entered into by the parties.
- Can the Supreme Court dispose of an appeal based on a compromise deed presented by the parties?
- Is a compromise agreement regarding the vacation of a tenanted shop enforceable when signed by both parties and their counsel?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal having been granted to a tenant against the orders of eviction (affirmed by the High Court by dismissing the petitioner's writ petition) he through his counsel has presented a deed of compromise with a request for its acceptance.
2. ' The learned counsel for the respondent is present. The deed of compromise is accompanied by a special power of attorney and is signed by the parties as well as the counsel for both sides. It reads as follows:- "(1) That the parties to the titled appeal have compromised in the following terms:-
(i) That Muhammad Akram appellant has undertaken to vacate the shop in dispute upto 3rd of September, 1989, and the respondent No,2 has no objection to the grant of the abovesaid time for vacation of the shop by the appellant.
(ii) That respondent No,2 undertakes to occupy the shop and her son Masoom Akhtar Asghar shall start his business within the statutory period after getting vacant possession of the shop. In case of failure to do so possession of the shop shall be immediately handed over to the appellant as a tenant on the same terms and conditions on which he is holding the shop at present.
3. ' Respondent No,2 Appellant, ' Sd./ Sd./ ' (Irshad Begum) (Muhammad Akram)
4. ' Through Advocate s/o Fazal Muhammad Appellant.
5. ' Sd./ Sd./ ' Through Advocate Through: Advocate."
6. The compromise appears to be genuine. There is no impediment in accepting the same for disposal of this appeal. The appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise, There shall be no order as to costs.