1994 PLP 360 (SCMR)

(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, dated 18‑9‑1991 passed in W.P. No. 7309 of 1989). ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Disposal of appeal on compromise of parties‑‑‑Case for ejectment of tenant‑‑‑Tenant's offer during course of arguments that if he was granted reasonable time to vacate premises, he would not press his appeal; such offer was accepted by landlord who agreed that tenant might be granted reasonable time to vacate premises provided he undertook to vacate premises on expiry of period granted by Court, without resort to execution proceedings‑‑‑Tenant's counsel undertook that tenant would vacate premises voluntarily and hand over possession thereof to landlord on expiry of period granted by Court‑‑‑Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that ejectment case was filed in 1985 and premises being commercial owned where tenant was carrying on his business for quite some time, granted time to tenant to vacate premises by specified date with consent of landlord on condition that in case he failed to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to landlord by specified date, he would be evicted forthwith without notice and if necessary, with force. M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th September; 1993. 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. 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 rind 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 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 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. A.A./M‑1830/S Order accordingly.