UNITED BANK LIMITED vs Mst. SHAHIDA BEGUM
This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal filed by United Bank Limited, a tenant, challenging the dismissal of its appeal against an eviction order. The eviction order was based on grounds of default and the personal requirement of the respondent's son, under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. While the High Court had set aside the default ground, it upheld the personal requirement ground. The petitioner contended that, based on the lease agreement, it could not be evicted on the ground of personal requirement. However, during proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioner and respondent reached a compromise. The petitioner submitted an undertaking to voluntarily vacate the rented premises and hand over physical possession to the respondent on or before April 30, 1991, without requiring notice or execution proceedings, in terms of clause 5 of the original lease. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and disposed of in accordance with this undertaking and compromise. A connected petition filed by the respondent was also not pressed and stood disposed of.
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal and disposed of based on a voluntary undertaking and compromise between the parties?
- Is an undertaking to vacate rented premises, made before the Supreme Court, sufficient ground for the disposal of an appeal challenging an eviction order?
- Can a tenant voluntarily agree to vacate premises by a specific date, thereby settling an eviction dispute before the Supreme Court?
- Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner Bank a tenant in this case under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979; against the dismissal of the appeal; whereby an order of eviction on grounds of default and personal requirement of the respondent's son, was brought under challenge.
2. The appeal succeeded in so far as the default part of the order impugned in it was concerned. It failed regarding the said bona fide requirement of the respondent. While the petitioner has riled this leave to appeal petition, the respondent also filed a separate Petition No.562-K of 1989 bringing under challenge the same judgment of the High Court whereby petitioner's appeal was decided, as noted above.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has after giving the background and resume of the case stated that it involved the interpretation of a lease agreement between the parties and, inter alia, contended that in accordance therewith the petitioner could not have been evicted on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the other side vehemently opposed the aforementioned position taken from the petitioner's side. However, after some discussion the present petition was not pressed any further on account of the following statement signed by the learned Advocate-on- record of the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondent.
UNDERTAKING "The petitioner undertakes to vacate the rented premises and hand over its vacant and physical possession voluntarily to the respondent on or before 30th April, 1991; without notice and or the process of execution proceeding in terms of clause 5 of the Lease dated 31-8-1979."
5. This petition, accordingly, is converted into appeal and it is disposed of in terms of the above recorded undertaking compromise. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. It needs to be noticed here that after the announcement of the order in this case the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady did not press the other petition; namely, C.P. 562-K of 1989, which also thus, stands disposed of.