1985 PLP 1785 (SCMR)

Iqbal Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by V.A. Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1982. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 20‑9‑1980 whereby a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and the Judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of the said High Court was upheld. The dispute between the parties arose out of a contract, dated 1‑4‑1956 between the petitioner and the Government of Pakistan, respondent No. 1, whereby petitioner was given on hire r furnished restaurant, a rest house, etc. in the administrative building, of the Karachi Airport with certain conditions, on payment of guaranteed minimum rent of Rs.6,700 which was enhanced later, by mutual agreement, to Rs.8,000 per month. In view of the default made by petitioner in payment of rent, the Government of Pakistan filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,74,601.44 as the amount due and payable by the petitioner under the contract. In defence, petitioner, inter alia, pleaded that the plaintiffs are guilty of the breach of the terms contained in clause 10 of the agreement which reads as follows:‑‑ "The caterer shall maintain the restaurant fully equipped for at least 100 persons and shall keep it open throughout day and night. The caterer shall run the restaurant and hotel (on the lines of first class restaurant) to the satisfaction of Director General where meals, provisions and drinks (alcoholic and otherwise), tobacco, cigarettes, etc. can be obtained by anyone authorised to use the Airport. The caterer shall have the sole right of supplying all the essential requirements of airmen and travellers including meals, drinks and no other person or persons (including hawkers) shall be allowed to carry on the caterer's trade within the premises of the administrative building. Airlines not having their own rest houses will take their aircraft supplies from the caterer exclusively and transit accommodation and meals for their passengers will be provided by the caterer only. This provision will have the effect from the date of signing of the contract." The case set up by the petitioner was that the payment of rent under the contract was contingent on the performance of the undertaking given by the Government under clause 10 of the Contract that "Airlines not having their own rest house will take their Aircrafts supplies from the petitioner exclusively, and petitioner alone will provide transit accommodation and meals to their passengers", but contrary to this undertaking, the Government allowed the Airlines companies not having their rest‑houses in Karachi to obtain meals from anywhere else, and also to accommodate their passengers elsewhere. Petitioner also joined the Airlines companies, who according to petitioner, had acted contrary to the terms of Clause 10 of the Contract, as defendants 2 to 15, and claimed certain amount as set off against plaintiff's claim. The case of the defendants Nos. 2 to 15, on the other hand, was that they were not bound by the contract between the petitioner and the Government as they were not parties to it. Learned single Judge in the High Court who tried the suit held that covenant of payments to be made by the petitioner under clause 1 of the Contract is absolute and unqualified, and there was nothing in clause 10 of the Contract to the effect that the Airlines not having their own rest‑houses were bound to obtain for their passengers and the supplies for their Air‑crafts from the petitioner or lodge their passengers in the rest‑houses leased to the petitioner. On this view of the case, learned Single Judge in the High Court decreed the suit. On appeal learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench also agreed with the views of the learned Single Judge and dismissed petitioner's appeal. After having gone through the record of the case we find that the learned Judges in the High Court have correctly interpreted the terms of the contract in the light of the evidence recorded in the case. There is, therefore, no valid justification for this Court to interfere. The petition is dismissed. M . I . Petition dismissed.