2006 PLP 830 (SCMR)

RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.

Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Sindh High Court order, dated 21-5-2004 dismissing his constitutional petition against concurrent findings of fact recorded by Rent Controller, Mirpurkhas in ejectment proceedings as well as an Additional District Judge, Mirpurkhas in first rent appeal directing eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of contumacious default in payment of rent.

2. From the record, it transpires that, instead of justifying his conduct as to the default in payment of rent for more than two decades, the petitioner agitated the question of relationship of landlord and tenant without any legal justification, raising self-contradictory and mutually destructive pleas from time to time before the lower forums. Being unsuccessful before the lower forums, he had the audacity to challenge the correctness of the judgments of the two Courts below before the High Court, which was heard by an Honourable Judge in Chambers and dismissed for valid and cogent reasons. Crux of the matter and the substance of the stance of the petitioners may be reproduced before from the impugned judgment appearing at page 19 of the paper book:-- "It will be pertinent to note that the petitioner has been taking inconsistent and shifting pleas in the proceedings. Initially, he alleged himself to be a tenant of Seth Naraindas in the premises under consideration and subsequently tried to assert his right for the transfer of the property in his favour and thereafter when Seth Naraindas was declared non-evacuee, he took plea that he has become trespasser and has acquired the title in the property by way of adverse possession and has finally taken plea that the property was transferred to him but the documents were not finally issued because of status quo order/pendency of civil litigation. In addition to the fact that the plea raised by the petitioner could neither be decided by the Rent Controller being Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, nor this Court can decide all these issues in the petition, the taking of inconsistent pleas adversely affects on the bona fide petitioner. In the above circumstances, I do not find any substance in the petition which stands dismissed in limine along with the listed applications."

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners at quite some length, careful scanning of the record and minutely going through the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that this is a glaring instance of frivolous and vexatious litigation, which must be curbed at all levels. In view of the observations of the High Court, not controverted by learned counsel for the petitioners at the Bar, there is hardly any c ground for grant of leave or interference by this Court in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Practically speaking, we endorse the views of the High Court and do not feel inclined to take a different view of the matter.

4. For the aforesaid facts, reasons and circumstances, petition must fail and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./Y-1/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.