Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SHAFI BUTT And Others Versus Khawaja MUHAMMAD NASEEM And Other
This matter originated as an ejectment petition filed by the respondent against the petitioners regarding a residential property in Lahore. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioners' ejectment, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal. Subsequently, the Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition in limine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, arguing the matter should have been adjudicated by a Civil Court, and contested the validity of a compromise agreement relied upon by the lower courts, asserting it violated the Qanun-e-Shahadat. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding that the compromise was entered into voluntarily and without undue influence. The Court held that the petitioners, having admitted the respondent's ownership and promised to surrender possession in the compromise, could not subsequently challenge the forum or the nature of the relationship to avoid their obligations. Emphasizing the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, the Court ruled that parties cannot be permitted to take shelter behind technicalities to renege on voluntary agreements. Leave to appeal was refused, and the petition was dismissed.
- Can a party who has voluntarily entered into a compromise agreement subsequently challenge the jurisdiction of the forum that recorded it?
- Does the doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevent a party from challenging the validity of a compromise they previously executed?
- Is a compromise agreement admitting ownership and promising surrender of possession enforceable in ejectment proceedings?
ORDER
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---Khawaja Muhammad Naseem filed an ejectment petition against the petitioners in the Court of Rent Controller, Lahore seeking their ejectment from Bungalow No. 197- Tariq Block, New Garden Town, Lahore. Ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent and damage to the property whereby its value and utility had been impaired. The petitioners contested the petition. The Rent Controller framed the following two issues:--
On 31-10-1987 the ejectment petition was allowed. Petitioners were directed to hand over vacant possession of the property to the owner by 30-11-1987.
Against the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioners filed appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge who by order dated 25-6-1989 dismissed the same.
Thereafter the petitioners invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. A learned Judge of the said Court dismissed the Constitution petition in limine by order dated 4-10-1989. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the Lahore High Court. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. He argued that if at all the petitioners were to be ejected then the forum was not the Rent Controller. Respondent ought to have invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
It was next contended that the compromise referred to in the order of the Rent Controller and the appellate Court was not legally sustainable. It was contrary to Qanun-e-Shahadat. Hence this could not form the basis of petitioners' ejectment.
Berth the contentions have no force. It is not at all possible to ignore the compromise which was voluntarily entered into between the parties without any undue influence from any side. Learned counsel did not challenge the execution of the compromise. The Rent Controller duly noted this compromise and that is why observed, "There is a compromise Exh. A-4 which reveals that the parties had entered into a compromise thereby the respondents admitted the petitioner as the undisputed owner and promised to hand over the vacant possession of the house in question to the petitioner by 10-12-1986-----"It was further observed by the Rent Controller, " ....The respondents' intention to surrender possession to the petitioner by admitting him to be the real owner but their reluctance to admit tenancy is only aimed to avoid the payment of the arrear of rental amount." This being the conduct of the petitioners they cannot be permitted to take shelter behind the technicalities. As a matter of fact they cannot be allowed even to approbate and reprobate. This petition therefore must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Nasim Hasan Shah3,148 judgments
- Ghulam Mujaddid382 judgments
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments