2001MLD814 (PLP)

Respondent in person. MUHAMMAD ALAM (MEMBER)‑‑‑On 24th May, 1997 Ali Rehman Complainant filed a complaint in the N.‑W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar alleging therein that the respondent Sohail Hassan Qaiser, Advocate, Peshawar, in July 1996, came to him and asked for renting out his Flat No. 1081 situated on Saddar Road Peshawar for the Office of the respondent. The respondent agreed to execute an agreement on proper stamp paper but instead 'of the said agreement the respondent brought a printed form filled in the same and handed over the said rent deed to the complainant. As the respondent was attached‑ to a noble profession of Practising law and thus, the complainant, reposed trust in the respondent and the respondent assured the complainant that proper agreement will be executed on a stamp paper lateron.

2. Further averments in the complaint are that the respondent occupied the premises and since the execution of the rent deed till to day neither the rent was paid nor he vacated the. said premises. It is further alleged that on repeated requests, the respondent was neither vacating the said premises nor paying the rent to the complainant. Besides this the respondent fraudulently entered a clause in the said deed with his own handwriting that in case of subletting the complainant shall have no objection. As the respondent under the robes of an Advocate has cheated the complainant and betrayed the trust, thus, it was prayed that legal action according to law be taken against the respondent.

3. That Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council initiated proceedings against the respondent and the respondent in spite of repeated notifies intentionally avoided service and hence was placed ex parte. The Disciplinary Committee of N.‑W.F.P. Bar Council recorded the statement of the complainant and the learned members after going through the record of the case and data available on the file referred the case to this Tribunal for final adjudication on 27‑12‑1997.

4. On receipt of the file when notices were issued to the parties, the respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and the matter was thoroughly argued by the learned counsel for the complainant and the respondent himself argued the case. That preliminary objection was overruled and the issue of jurisdiction was answered in affirmative by this Tribunal vide a detailed judgment dated 22‑4‑2000.

5. Before us it was contended by the learned counsel for the I complainant that the premises were in fact rented out to the respondent for establishing an office for professional duties as an Advocate and that by not paying the rent the respondent has betrayed a trust reposed in him by the complainant and has thus, committed a professional misconduct within the purview of Rule 172 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, thus, entailing the penalty of striking off his name from the roll of Advocates..

6. The respondent on the other hand submitted that in fact the rent of the suit premises, was duly remitted to the complainant through money order, which could not be delivered to him on due date and thus, the complaint was filed by the complainant due to misconception of the situation.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case. Admittedly the respondent under the robes of an Advocate approached the complainant for renting out the premises Flat No.3 Saddar Road Peshawar Cantt at the rate of Rs.3,500 per month and in this respect executed a rent deed Exh.P.A., in favour of the complainant and then failed to tender the rent to the complainant on the date of its accrual.

8. On 3‑11‑2000, the parties appeared before us and stated that they are going to settle the matter within a week's time, and that the respondent will pay a sum of Rs.50,000 to the complainant to cover the outstanding telephone charges alongwith the surcharge in the bills outstanding and thus, at the request of the parties the case was adjourned.

9. Today the parties agreed that the grievances of the complainant have been redressed in toto and now nothing is left against the respondent as the possession of the suit premises has already been delivered to the complainant.

10. Thus, in view of the above narration of facts, as the grievances of the complainant have been completely redressed by the respondent, we would not like to proceed further in the matter and the present proceedings are hereby filed, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./220/P Order accordingly.