MUNIR AHMED vs SHAHID MAHMOOD and 2 others
This matter originated as an appeal against an ejectment order, which was initially dismissed for non-prosecution but subsequently restored upon the appellant's application. Upon hearing the appeal on its merits, the Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order. During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel offered to withdraw the appeal if granted reasonable time to vacate the commercial premises. The respondents, represented by counsel and present in person, consented to this proposal on the condition that the appellant provides a formal undertaking to vacate voluntarily by a specified date without requiring execution proceedings. The Court, noting the long-standing nature of the ejectment case initiated in 1985, accepted the compromise. The Court granted the appellant time until 30-3-1994 to vacate the premises, subject to the condition that the appellant continues to pay rent regularly and surrenders peaceful possession by the deadline. It was further ordered that failure to comply would result in immediate eviction, using force if necessary, without further notice.
- Can an appellate court grant time for vacating premises based on a mutual undertaking between the parties?
- What are the consequences of failing to vacate commercial premises after an undertaking is given to the Supreme Court?
- Is an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution eligible for restoration upon application?
1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The above appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28-6-1993, on account of absence of the appellant and his counsel. The appellant has applied for restoration of the appeal. On consideration of the grounds mentioned in the restoration appeal and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have restored the appeal to its file and heard it on merits.
2. ' The learned counsel for the appellant after arguing the appeal for some time offered that if his client is granted reasonable time to vacate the premises, he would not press the appeal. We have gone through the impugned order and otherwise find no merit in the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents/landlord after consulting his client who is present in person, agreed that the Court may grant reasonable time to the appellant to vacate the premises provided the appellant undertakes to vacate it on the expiry of the period granted by this Court without resort to execution.
3. Proceedings. Mr. M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, undertakes that the appellant will vacate the premises voluntarily and hand over its possession to respondents on A the expiry of the period granted by this Court. Keeping in view the fact that the ejectment case was filed in 1985 and the premises is commercial one, where appellant is carrying on his business for quite some time, we grant time to appellant to vacate the premises till 30-3-1994, with the consent of respondents on the condition that in case the appellant failed to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to respondents 31-3-1994, he will be evicted forthwith without notice and if necessary with force. The appellant will also continue to deposit the rent regularly during this period. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
Cited by 4 cases
- Mst. AZRA GULZAR Versus MUHAMMAD FAROOQ 2018 CLC 1056
- Messrs TANVEER SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized Executive Director Finance vs TARIQ SAEED through Shahzad Akber and 2 others 2017 YLR 1762
- M/s Tanveer Spinning & Weaving Mills vs Tariq Saeed etc. 2017 PLJ Lahore 655, 2017 YLR 1762, 2017 LHC 992
- M/s. TANVEER SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS vs TARIQ SAEED etc 2017 PLJ Lahore 655