1983 PLP 1098 (SCMR)

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑Through this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of 'the Lahore High Court dated 30‑11‑1982 passed in Writ Petition No. 3276/1982.

2. The property in dispute bearing No. P/53 Ward No. 1 Street No. 1, Mandir Gali, Rail' Bazar, Faisalabad, owned by Shabab Din consisted two shops and residential portion on the top. According to the petitioner, Shahab Din asked for advance to reconstruct the property. The petitioner paid Rs. 49,000 for reconstruction of the property to Shahab Din on the; condition that after the reconstruction, a shop will be rented out to him Rs. 200 per month and the advance would be kept as security refundable on the termination of the lease. After the reconstruction of the property the petitioner got a shop, as agreed upon between the parties. Shahab Din died in 1977 and the present respondents Mst. Barkat Bibi, etc. heirs of Shahab Din filed ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller, Faisalabad against the petitioner on the ground of personal need. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 21‑9‑1981 ordered the eviction of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred against this order which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, vide judgment dated 7‑7‑1982. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a constitutional petition bearing No. 3276/82 which was also dismissed by the learned High Court vide the impugned order dated 30‑11‑1982.

3. Learned counsel contended that there is nothing in the Punjab Urban Restriction Ordinance, 1959 prohibiting the agreement in dispute the said Ordinance is designed to restrict the eviction of tenants ; the agreement by which the landlord places restriction on himself in the matter of eviction of the tenant is, therefore, in keeping with the aims and objects of the said Ordinance and not in derogation thereof ; that Shahab Din had been succeeded by respondents Nos. 1 to 8 who are bound by the Agreement entered into by late Shahab Din and the said Agreement is a legal and binding document, and the learned counsel lastly contended that the respondents have failed to establish a case of personal requirement of the property in dispute.

4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that the Courts below have given finding against the petitioner on the questions of facts and, therefore, no interference is called for in the matter. As regards the agreement by which the petitioner has advanced Rs. 49,000 to the late Shahab Din the petitioner can sue the respondents for the recover of the said amount as held by the learned High Court Judge in the impugned order in the following words "The agreement as it stands, simply provides the petitioner with a right, if any, to claim damages in case he is ejected. Such an agreement, by itself, will not affect the ejectment order because no relief as to specific performance under section 21 of the Specific Relief Act can be given of such an Agreement. Since in this agreement the petitioner has an adequate relief to sue for damages to the extent as was settled between the parties, therefore, such an agreement will not have its effect on the validity of ejectment order which has otherwise been passed at the instance of the heirs of the deceased."

5. We endorse the above observation made by the learned Judge. The petitioner has the right to file a suit for the recovery of the amount advanced to late Shahab Din and also for damages if he so desire. This will not bar any such action, if available under the law. The petition is dismissed. S.Q. Petition dismissed.