1990 PLP 330 (SCMR)

Shah Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th June, 1989. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 26th April, 1989 whereby writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who are minors filed a petition through their father Professor Iqbal Ahmad Chaudhry seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed property. The petitioner was claimed to be tenant under the respondents at a monthly rent of Rs.5,000 upto August 1983. The rent upto this period was paid by him but thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs.5,500 per month. He paid that rent also until July 1986 but then committed default till the institution of the ejectment petition. The petitioner in his written statement alleged that he was not a tenant of the respondents, that there existed oral agreement to sell the disputed property between Professor Iqbal Ahmad Chaudhry father of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on the one hand and the petitioner on the other. The petitioner claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.80,000 as earnest money and that he was given possession of the disputed shop under the said agreement to sell. The Rent Controller did not accept the plea of the petitioner and vide order dated 3rd December, 1988 he directed the petitioner to deposit the rent. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition which as stated above has been dismissed. Hence the. present petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that the Rent Controller should have first decided the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thereafter he could have proceeded with the matter of depositing the arrears. of rent. It was next submitted that the High Court could not suo motu take judicial notice of an order passed by a Tribunal as against the petitioner and that on the basis df such judicial notice dismiss the writ petition of the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel at some length. The writ petition was dismissed because according to the High Court the petitioner was guilty of suppressing an order passed on 6th November, 1988 against the petitioner by the Rent Controller. This order was placed on the record by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and it indicated that the Rent Controller had considered the contention of oral agreement to sell and had rejected it. This meant that the petitioner was not in possession of the premises as owner on the basis of the agreement to sell but was only a tenant under respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Thus since he had not come with clean hands, the High Court dismissed his constitutional petition. We have ;one through the said order. It was not challenged by the petitioner nor he brought it to the notice of this Court. The High Court was correct to arrive at the conclusion that the said order had a direct bearing on this case and that the petitioner had suppressed the same deliberately. Since this is the position no case is made out for interference. The petition is accordingly I dismissed. M.A.K./S‑440/S Petition dismissed.