Mst. RASHIDA RANI and anothers vs Mst. AZIZ BEGUM
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which disposed of a writ petition regarding the eviction of tenants from a residential house. The core legal question concerns the challengeability of a consent order passed by the High Court based on a joint statement of the parties' counsel, where the tenants had enjoyed the benefit of extended time to vacate the premises. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners cannot be permitted to question the validity of a consent order under which they have acted and derived benefit, particularly when the petition is also heavily barred by time without cogent explanation. The key principle laid down is that a party who has consented to an order and derived benefit from it is estopped from subsequently challenging its validity before the appellate forum.
- Can a party challenge the validity of a consent order after acting upon it and deriving benefit from it?
- Whether a petition barred by significant delay without cogent explanation can be entertained for leave to appeal?
- What is the effect of failing to comply with a tentative rent order passed under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Section 13(6), Rent Restriction Ordinance
1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners who were tenant of respondent in respect of House No,B/506, Street No,24, Naya Mohallah, Rawalpindi, were ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, Rawalpindi, in an ejectment case filed on the grounds of default in payment of rent, demage to the rented premises and personal and bona fide requirement of the premises by the respondent, on account of non-compliance of the direction of Rent Controller passed under section 13(6) of Rent Restriction Ordinance.
2. ' The petitioners were required to deposit the arrears of rent as well as the current monthly rent under the orders of Rent Controller dated 2-9-1993, before 7-11-1993 and 15th of each month respectively. The petitioners moved the Rent Controller for review of the tentative rent order dated 2-9-1993 on 12-10-1993 which was dismissed on 3-11-1993. The petitioners in spite of dismissal of their application for review of tentative rent order failed to comply with the order dated 2-9-1993, resulting in the striking of their defence in the case. The Rent Controller as well as the first appellate Court did not accept the explanation offered by the petitioners for the default in compliance with the order dated 2-9-1993. The learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners on the basis of the joint statement of the counsel for the parties on 11-10-1994 as follows:- "2. After arguing this matter at some length, learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner shall continue to occupy the rented premises till 31-3-1995. On or before that date, they will hand over vacant possession to the respondent No,3 or her counsel. In the course of trial of this matter before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court, the petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs,19,000 as rent due, to the land-lady, which was assessed at Rs,1000 per month tentatively by the Rent Controller. The respondent-landlady shall withdraw this sum of Rs,19,000 and this should be the entire rent payable till 31-3-1995 and no other sum shall be paid to the landlady on account of rent due."
3. The petitioners are now seeking leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 11-10- 1994. Besides, the facts that the petition is barred by 93 days for which no cogent explanation is offered, the petitioners cannot be permitted to question the validity of order dated 11-10-1994 which is a consent order and the petitioners not only acted in it but also derived benefit under it. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.