1980 PLP 565 (SCMR)

(b) Constitution of Pakistan 1973‑ ‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑Horse Breeding grant‑Dispute over renewal of lease‑Point not raised before High Court in writ petition Special leave to appeal‑Held, cannot be granted to examine a new claim. Agha Abdul Ali Khan, Advocate and Sh. A. Karim, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner. Taufiq Qureshi, Advocate and Zia Muhammad Mirza, Advocate for Respondent No.

3. Date of hearing : 5th December, 1979‑ DORAB PATEL, J.‑The late Major Zarif Hussain (now represented by his legal heirs) was granted four squares of land in 1958 in Lyallpur District for horse breeding. But, according to learned counsel, the lease was executed over 10 years later and expired ip Kharif 1968. Therefore, the late Major Zarif Hussain had applied in 1967 Wider paragraph 14 of the terms of the lease for its renewal. But, as it was extended only up to 31‑10‑1969, he had asked for a further renewal because it was usual to grant extensions for at least three years. His claim was however rejected on the ground that his record of horse breeding was unsatisfactory, therefore, he filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court in which he challenged on various grounds the termination of his lease. Although the writ petition was contested by the respondents, it was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, therefore, the respondents filed an appeal which was allowed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court an 9‑7‑1977.Hence this petition for leave. Learned counsel submitted that on a proper construction of clause (14) of the lease, the lessee was entitled to be heard if the lease in his favour was not resumed and in support of this submission, he stated that leave had been granter to examine this very question in other petitions, No doubt leave has been granted in some similar cases, but learned counsel admitted that Major Zarif Hussain had died, therefore, the petitioners can no longer rely on clause (14) and his Court does not grant leave to examine academic questions. Learned counsel then stated that the petitioners as the legal heirs of the late Major Zarif Hussain were entitled to the grant of tenancy under clause (16) of the terms of the lease. Learned counsel conceded that this point was not raised in the High Court and he explained that: this was because it could not be raised during the lifetime of Major Zarif Hussain. Learned counsel's explanation is correct, but as the writ petition was pressed on the basis of clause (14) of the lease, we cannot possibly grant leave in order to examine a totally new claim. However, if the petitioners are so advised they may approach the respon dents for relief under this clause. With this observation, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.