FAHMIDA BEGUM And 7 Other vs KHALID ROHEEL ALAM And 3 Other
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against an eviction order from an urban property, which had been upheld by the High Court. Before arguing the merits of the case, counsel for the petitioners—a widow with orphan children—sought a compromise based on humanitarian grounds, offering to vacate the premises within a reasonable timeframe in exchange for not pressing the petition. The respondents accepted this offer. The Supreme Court, noting that this case differed from those where tenants prolong litigation unnecessarily, accepted the parties' mutual agreement. The Court disposed of the petition based on the petitioners' undertaking to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the landlords within one year, thereby avoiding execution proceedings. The judgment established that where parties reach a voluntary settlement regarding the timeline for vacating premises, the court may dispose of the petition based on such an undertaking, with the condition that failure to comply would result in immediate eviction via a writ of possession without further notice.
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be disposed of based on a mutual undertaking between landlord and tenant regarding the time for vacating premises?
- Does a court have the authority to issue a writ of possession directly if a tenant fails to honor an undertaking to vacate premises within an agreed timeframe?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal by the tenant side against the order of eviction from a property in an urban area. The respondents' ejectment petition having been allowed throughout and the petitioners having failed even in the writ petition filed before the High Court, leave to appeal has been sought on various grounds.
2. However, even before arguing the matter and pressing the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated and argued that the main petitioner is a widow with orphan children and that they have no other livelihood except mearge earning from the property in dispute. If on account of this reason, he further stated, the respondents' side allows the petitioners some further time to remain in occupation and also some time to vacate the premises and make alternate arrangement, this petition would not be pressed.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents understandably accepted the offer without any hesitation as he knew that the offer has been made even without arguing the petition on merits. Such like cases have to be treated on different footings than those in which an evicted tenant tries to further prolong the agony of the landlord by further litigation. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioners rightly earned a better position for the present petitioners as compared to the tenants in the aforementioned cases which are fought to the hilt and ultimately on failure, time is sought for vacating the premises.
4. With these considerations when the question, as to how much time would be just and proper arose, both the learned counsel rightly agreed on one year time. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of on the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they would vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession to the landlord side without any objection and without the respondents going through the process of the execution proceedings.
5. After one year from today if the premises are not vacated earlier, as above directed, the petitioners shall be ejected through a writ of possession directly issued without any further notice.