2000 PLP 1196 (CLC)

Ismail Brothers v. Keval Ram PLD 1981 SC 545; Ch. Jalal Din v. Mst. Asghari Begum and others 1984 SCMR 586 and Mst. Fehmida Begum v. Muhammad Khalid and another 1992 SCMR 1908 ref. Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh for Applicant Muhammad Ali Syed for Respondent. This order will dispose of application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. submitted by the applicant/intervenor. It is the case of the applicant that he invested huge amount to run his business of petrol pump on the plot in dispute and he was assured that he would not be ejected from the premises till expiry of lease period. However, allegedly after collusive ejectment proceedings he was informed all of a sudden through letter, dated October 9, 1998 that he was required to remove the equipments and structure on/or before 13‑2‑1999 from the premises in dispute in order to comply with the order, 29‑3‑1994 of the Honourable Supreme Court. The applicant through his learned counsel gave reply which is available on record. In this reply it was specifically stated that the licence should not be withdrawn before 13‑2‑1999. It is also the case of the applicant that thereafter he made inquiries about the ejectment proceedings and it transpired that the Excise and Taxation Department had not sent any demand challan or bill to the appellant demanding betterment. Further, the appellant allegedly did not contest the ejectment proceedings seriously, therefore the respondent managed to obtain ejectment order fraudulently I heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The respondent sought ejectment of the appellant by submitting rent application under section 15(2) of S.R.P.O., 1979 on 31‑7‑1979 on the sole ground of wilful default in payment of taxes. The application was allowed. However. in First Rent appeal No.329 of 1995 on 5‑12‑1988 the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court and again rent application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller which was challenged in F.R.A. No.85 of 1991 but the same was dismissed. This judgment of this Court was challenged in C.A. 311‑K of 1994 and the same was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court and one year time was granted to the appellant to vacate the plot in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the applicant is licensee in interest and therefore he cannot be ejected in this manner. Furthermore there had been collusive proceedings between the appellant and the respondent/landlord. Hence this application under section 15(2) S.R.P.O. is maintainable. He also submitted that this application may be disposed of after framing an issue. In support of his submission he cited Ismail Brothers v. Keval Ram PLD 1981 SC 545, Ch. Jalal Din v. Mst. Asghari Begum and others 1984 SCMR 586 and Mst. Fehmida Begum v. Muhammad Khalid and another 1992 SCMR 1908. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted ~ that the , present applicant was mere licensee and he was informed well in time to remove the structure so that compliance of the order of Honourable Supreme Court may be made. He has no vested right to remain in possession of the said property Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under the lease agreement the appellant had no right to sub‑let the premises in dispute and the applicant is not entitled to any equitable relief. Lastly he submitted that this application has been moved mala fide to open a new round of litigation. After having gone through the case‑law and record in my humble view there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. The appellant had informed the present applicant about the orders p passed by the Honourable Supreme Court and the licence was also revoked. Since, the applicant conceded in his reply which .was given through his learned counsel that it had a right to remain in possession of the plot‑ in dispute at least till 13‑2‑1999, it did not raise any protest and now when the period is about to be over all of a sudden this application has been moved A which is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed in limine alongwith miscellaneous applications. Q.M.H./M.A.K./P‑3/K Application dismissed.