1996 PLP 1026 (SCMR)

FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 25-9-1994 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.341 of 1993.

2. Facts briefly stated are that Municipal Corporation, Quetta wanted to construct Baldia Shopping Complex at Mizan Chowk, Quetta. This Complex had a basement. Petitioners moved applications for allotment of shops proposed to be constructed in the basement. These applications were entertained and the petitioners were asked to deposit security of Rs.20,000 each. Later on lease deeds were executed between the parties in respect of the shops in the basement for a period of one year commencing from 1-8-1991. Subsequently, respondent facing difficulties of parking in the area intended to use the basement area for parking purposes. It was thereafter the petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of the agreement of lease. After issuance of notice to the respondent i.e. the Administrator, Quetta Municipal Corporation, ex parte proceedings were ordered. On gaining knowledge of the ex parte proceedings the respondent made an application for setting aside the order and also made an application for dismissal/rejection of the suit on the ground of absence of cause of action. The learned counsel for the parties on the applications came to the conclusion that the lease agreements executed between the parties on 10-7-1991 were for a period of one year commencing from 1-8-1991, which expired on 31-7-1992 and the same having not been renewed in the terms of the agreements the petitioners were to surrender the vacant possession forthwith. On such finding it was held that the petitioners failed to prove that they had a subsisting cause of action on ' the date on which the suit was filed. Their appeal against the order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Quetta, on 26-10-1993. Their revision petition against the same also met the same fate in the High Court.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we find no substance in this petition. Admittedly there were no shops constructed in the basement when the agreements of lease were executed, still the petitioners through these agreement deeds accepted that constructed shops have been leased out to them for a period of one year which period expired on 31-7-1992. Admittedly petitioners never approached the respondent for renewal per terms of the lease agreements. Subsequently when the idea of constructing the shops in the basement was given up and the basement was to be utilized for parking purposes the present suit was instituted which does not fall within the perameter of agreement of lease relied upon by the petitioners. The learned High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that the petitioners had no cause of action for bringing the present suit. There is also no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in absence of any written statement filed by the respondent and providing opportunity to the petitioners for filing replication the learned trial Judge had acted illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing/rejecting the plaint for absence of any cause of action. This question has been dealt with by the learned High Court in great detail and supported by authoritative pronouncement of the Superior Courts. The objection ' with regard to lack of cause of action, on facts and circumstances of the case, was raised in the application and both the learned counsel for the parties addressed arguments on the point in the light of the admitted documentary evidence, in the shape of lease agreements, available on the file. Hence no grievance could be raised on that score. For the reasons we find no substance in the petition and dismiss the same. H. B. T. /541 /Q Petition dismissed.