Ch. KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioners. The petitioners, who had entered into a joint lease with the District Council, Sheikhupura, for holding cattle fairs, sought to restrain the District Council from interfering with their operations after one of the lessees had unilaterally repudiated the lease agreement citing exorbitant costs. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable to enforce a contractual lease agreement that has already been repudiated by the lessees. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petition. The Court held that the repudiation of the lease by one of the joint lessees effectively bound all co-lessees, rendering the agreement unenforceable at their instance. The key principle laid down is that a writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce a contractual agreement that the petitioners themselves have repudiated, and that such contractual disputes are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under the circumstances presented.
- Can a writ petition be maintained to enforce a contractual lease agreement?
- Does the repudiation of a lease by one joint lessee bind the other co-lessees?
- Is a writ petition the appropriate remedy for enforcing a contract that the petitioners have themselves repudiated?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioners obtained a joint lease from the District Council, Sneikhupura, to hold cattle fair at certain specified places. The site for the cattle fair was subsequently changed whereupon Ghulam Muhammad, petitioner No, 3, wrote a letter to the Administrator of the District Council repudiating the lease on the pretext that the lease money fixed was exorbitant and the lessees were not likely to make any profit. The Administrator did not agree to reduce the lease money, but accepting the offer made by Ghulam Muhammad he cancelled the lease.
2. ' The petitioners thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court to restrain the District Council from interfering with the holding of cattle fair by them. A learned Judge found the claim entirely baseless and dismissed the petition in limine on the ground that the lease stood repudiated and that a writ did not lie to enforce an agreement of lease. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The view adopted by the learned Judge is, in law and facts, not open to any exception. In repudiating the lease Ghulam Muhammad acted not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of his co-lessees. It was not open thereafter to the petitioners to enforce an agreement which they them- B selves had repudiated. We concur with the High Court that on the facts of the case a writ did not lie.
4. ' The petition is dismissed.