1986 PLP 1697 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioners claiming to be the landlords of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 12‑10‑1983 whereby their Constitutional petition was dismissed and the dismissal of ejectment application filed by them by the appellate authority was maintained. In their application for ejectment, the petitioners claimed that the respondent No. 1 was the tenant who had sublet the property to respondent No. 2 that the rent was not paid and that it was required bona fide by them for their own business. Respondent No. 2 contested it, denied relationship of landlord and tenant and his being a sub‑tenant and relied on the orders passed by a magistrate and the civil Court for establishing his ownership. The contest took place mainly on the question whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The Rent Controller held that respondent No. 2 was a sub‑lessee and as there was denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant, he was liable to be evicted and an eviction order was passed against him. On appeal, the District Judge examined the effect of the previous litigation between the parties, the compromise bringing to an end that litigation and the decree passed in consequence and held as follows‑‑ "It is evident that if the suit had been decided on the merits, the decision of the question of title would have been necessary to the decision of the suit and would have been binding upon the parties in any subsequent proceedings. I am unable to see why the mere fact that the suit was decided by compromise should produce a different result particularly when in the compromise the entire claim of Ghulam Mohy‑ud‑Din was conceded in so many words." The finding of Rent Controller that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties was reversed and the application for ejectment dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decree of the civil Court only mentioned this much that the respondent No. 2 be not evicted except in accordance with and in due course of law. By approaching the Rent Controller for getting him evicted on grounds recognized by the statute, he was complying with the decree of the civil Court and it could in no manner be an impediment to his claim. The decree which has disentitled the petitioners had a background' and a controversy. It related to the nature of rights of the parties in the property and their right to deal with it. The plaint filed by respondent No. 2 shows that the title was very much in issue. The terms of the compromise are very wide and related to the claims made by respondent No. 2 and decree was passed on the basis thereof. The contention of the learned counsel that respondent No. 2 was a clever lawyer who got the compromise drafted in manner to derive undue benefit out of it, itself suggests that the compromise could not be brought to the Rent Controller for being ignored or set aside. If at all any relief against it was intended, it should have been obtained either in the hierarchy of the civil Court by an appeal or revision or if there was an element of fraud or undue influence or misrepresentation, by recourse to law. The Rent Controller's forum being one of limited jurisdiction was not open to such scrutiny and challenge as was sought by the petitioners. In the circumstances, the claim made by the petitioners was rightly dismissed. There is no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused. M.I. Petition dismissed.