2010 SCMR 1108 (PLP)

KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 10-3-2003 passed by learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dismissing his Writ Petition No.272 of 2001, the petitioners seek leave to appeal.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act against respondents Nos.1 and 2 alleging therein that he was tenant under respondent No.3 in the suit shop for the last 25 years but respondents Nos.1 and 2 had forcibly dispossessed him from the shop in question.

3. Learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties dismissed the suit of the, petitioner/plaintiff. The appeal and revision filed by him have also been dismissed by the Appellate Court and learned High Court, respectively, giving rise to this petition.

4. Mr. Mir Adam Khan Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record, appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Astaghfirullah, Advocate Supreme Court, represented respondents Nos.1 and

2. Respondent No.3, appeared in person.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was tenant in the shop in question and was running the same through his attorney/agent, namely, Liaqat Ali, who to satisfy his debt handed over the shop in question to one Amjad Ali who thereafter handed over the same to respondents and as such, he filed suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act as respondents dispossessed him unlawfully.

6. P.W.2 in his statement stated that Liaqat Ali used to sit in the shop in question. The petitioner himself has appeared in the witness box. Said Liaqat Ali, Attorney, appeared as his witness and admitted that in the absence of the petitioner he runs the business in the shop but denied the suggestion of partnership with the petitioner.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, it appears that section 9 of the Specific Relief Act provided for a summary proceedings in respect of a person dispossessed from the premises without due process of law. Even if it is accepted that Liaqat Ali, Attorney/Agent had no authority to handover possession of the shop in question, the remedy lies against the Agent / Attorney of the petitioner and not by filing suit for possession against the respondents.

8. The object of section 9 is to discourage dispossession without the consent of the person in possession. It intends to provide summary remedy for the restoration of possession to a party dispossessed without its consent, without going into the question of title of the property.

9. No material has been brought on record that possession of the premises in question was taken over by the respondents from the attorney or agent' of the petitioner, who was in possession of the `shop' by misrepresentation fraud or against his freewill or that respondents were informed that the attorney or agent in possession had no authority to surrender the possession of the shop.

10. An unauthorized act of an agent in excess of his authority in all cases is not binding upon his principal, however, it is not the case of the petitioner/principal that before taking over the possession of the shop from his attorney, he had put the respondents on notice that attorney Liaqat Ali possessed no authority to handover possession of the shop to them.

11. Learned trial Court, learned Appellate Court as well as learned High Court have rightly declined the relief prayed for under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.

12. In the circumstances, there seems no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./G-6/SC Leave refused.