Pakistan Case LawMian MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and 2
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's consent to vacate the premises, recorded during ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller, was voluntary or obtained through judicial coercion. The petitioner alleged that the Rent Controller pressured him into a compromise to expedite the disposal of the case. The Supreme Court reviewed the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Court, and the High Court, all of which had rejected the petitioner's claim of coercion. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment order, being based on the petitioner's own consent, was valid and that there was no evidence of judicial coercion. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The principle laid down is that a consent-based order in rent proceedings, where the tenant voluntarily agrees to vacate, is binding and cannot be set aside on unsubstantiated allegations of judicial coercion.
- Can an ejectment order based on a tenant's consent be challenged on the grounds of judicial coercion?
- Does a concurrent finding by lower courts regarding the voluntariness of a compromise warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 8-9- 1994 of the Lahore High Court whereby Writ Petition No,897 of 1994 filed by him was dismissed in limine.
2.The respondent No,3 had instituted an ejectment petition against the petitioner for vacation of the house in dispute on the ground of personal need and having committed default in payment of rent.
3.During the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, more particularly on 15-2-1994, when the statement of the petitioner was being recorded by the learned Rent Controller, the parties reached a compromise, according to which the petitioner offered his landlord to allow him six months' period for vacation of the disputed premises. The offer made by the petitioner was accepted by the son of the landlord who was acting as his attorney. The learned Rent Controller, accordingly, passed the order directing the petitioner to vacate the premises on 15-8-1994.
4.The petitioner felt aggrieved against the aforesaid order and filed appeal contending that he made no voluntary statement and the learned Rent Controller had coerced him to reach the compromise as he was keen to dispose of the matter before 28-2-1994, as directed by the High Court. His plea was rejected and consequently the appeal was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. The petitioner then filed writ petition before the Lahore High Court which too was dismissed vide impugned order, referred to above. Hence this petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner at some length and have also perused the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, the learned Additional District Judge as also the High Court in the matter.
The impugned order of ejectment of the petitioner was based on his consent. We are not impressed by the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Rent Controller had coerced the petitioner to reach a compromise with the landlord. The concurrent orders passed by all the three Courts, referred to above, call for no interference by this Court. This petition, consequently, fails and is dismissed.
We, however, grant one month's time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question on or before 20-3-1995, failing which the writ of ejectment from the premises shall be issued against him by the Rent Controller concerned without notice to the petitioner.
Judges on this bench
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments
- Mir Hazar Khan Khoso453 judgments