Pakistan Case Law
2002 SCMR 383

ABDUL SATTAR.MEMON vs Khatri KARIM MUHAMMAD

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2002 SCMR 383
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Appeal No,1360 of 1999
Date2001-02-08
Judge(s)Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Hamid Ali Mirza
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated as an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding an ejectment dispute between the appellant and the respondent. During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel requested that the appeal be dismissed as not pressed, contingent upon the appellant being granted a one-year period to vacate the premises. The respondent consented to this arrangement. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the request and dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Court ordered the appellant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent by 7th February 2002. This directive was subject to the condition that the appellant continues to deposit the monthly rent with the Rent Controller by the 10th of each succeeding month. The Court further stipulated that failure to pay the rent or to vacate the premises by the specified date would entitle the respondent to seek immediate ejectment of the appellant through the issuance of warrants by the competent executing Court, without the requirement of further notice to the appellant.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can an appeal be dismissed as not pressed based on a mutual agreement between parties regarding a timeline for vacating premises?
  • What are the consequences of failing to comply with a court-ordered timeline for vacating premises in an ejectment case?
  • Is a landlord entitled to seek immediate ejectment warrants without notice if a tenant fails to pay rent or vacate by a court-mandated deadline?
ejectmentvacant possessionrent controlconsent decreeappeal dismissed as not pressed

ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he would not press the appeal provided a period of one year is given to the appellant for vacating the premises. The other side expresses no objection.

2. Request is allowed and the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The appellant shall hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondent on or before 7th February, 2002 subject to deposit of monthly rent by the appellant in the Court of Rent Controller on or before 10th of every succeeding month. However, if the rent is not paid or possession of the premises is not handed over on the stipulated date, the respondent shall_ be free to seek ejectment of the appellant by getting issued his warrants of ejectment from the competent executing Court without notice.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.