2008 PLP 1034 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

Through a short order .passed by us today Civil Petition No.16-L of 2004 was dismissed. These are the reasons leading to the said order.

2. Muhammad Akram respondent filed a petition in the Court of a learned Civil Judge/Rent Controller at Gojra in the year 1995 seeking eviction of the present petitioners from the 1/2 portion of the shop in question. This petition was dismissed through an order of the learned Rent Controller at Gojra passed on 31-10-2000. On an appeal filed by the present respondent, a learned Additional District Judge at Gojra set aside the said order, dated 31-10-2000 and allowing the application of the respondent directed eviction of the present petitioners from the premises in question within three months. The petitioners then approached the Lahore High Court through S.A.O. No.97 of 2002. The learned Judge in Chambers re-examined the entire evidence and after considering the legal questions canvassed by the present petitioners, affirmed the conclusions reached by the learned Additional District Judge and consequently dismissed the said appeal through the impugned judgment dated 31-10-2003.

3. The petitioners-tenants are now before us impugning the said concurrent findings of the two learned Appellate Courts.

4. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners has been heard at some length and we have also examined the record in the light of the submissions made by him.

5. The only submission made by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners in support of this petition is that the late father of Muhammad Akram respondent had entered into an agreement with the petitioners for the sale of the suit premises; that the petitioners had filed a suit seeking specific performance of the said agreement; that the petitioners were no longer occupants of the suit premises as tenants and were in possession thereof as owners of the same and that the petitioner could not be evicted from the shop in question till their said suit for specific performance was finally decided.

6. The learned Judge in Chambers had examined this question in depth and had answered the same in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment. We have examined the reasons offered by the learned High Court to repel the contention in question and find that the same did not admit of any interference. In fact the two learned appellate fora had re-examined the matter and had concurrently concluded against the petitioners.

7. Having thus, examined all aspects of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.

8. During the course of the hearing of this petition we noticed that it was through the impugned judgment, dated 31-10-2003 that the learned High Court had directed the petitioners to vacate the premises in question within one month. On our query, we were informed that the operation of this judgment had never been suspended by this Court. We were further informed that 'despite this command of the learned High Court, the petitioners had still not vacated the premises in question and are still occupying the same. Confronted with this contumacious conduct of the petitioners which was in complete defiance of the command of the learned High Court, we directed the S.D.P.O. Gojra through our short order announced today to evict the petitioners in compliance with the orders of the learned High Court and to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the said premises to the respondent by or before 5th June, 2005. S.A.K./287/SC Leave refused.