1990 PLP 372 (SCMR)
ABDUS SALAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUNIR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 372 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah mid Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUS SALAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUNIR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 372 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 372 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah mid Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 372 (SCMR) (ABDUS SALAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUNIR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Abul Asim Jafari, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents. .
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1989.
- ---S.13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Compromise---Tenant compromised in High Court and undertook to hand over the vacant possession to landlord---Contention that tenant was not properly advised in High Court and that he would suffer irreparable loss if order was implemented repelled---Tenant having been represented and assisted in High Court by Advocate and compromise reached after detailed negotiations, backing out of a solemn agreement by tenant, in which he gained the advantage of further retaining the possession of premises for about nine months was not approved---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- The petitioner was represented and assisted in the High Court by a learned Advocate. The compromise was reached after detailed negotiations. There is no justification for the petitioner for backing out of a solemn agreement in which he gained the advantage of further retaining the possession of the suit premises for about nine months. That being so, leave to appeal is refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 20-3-1989 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.145 of 1989).
S.13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Tenant compromised in High Court and undertook to hand over the vacant possession to landlord
Contention that tenant was not properly advised in High Court and that he would suffer irreparable loss if order was implemented repelled
Tenant having been represented and assisted in High Court by Advocate and compromise reached after detailed negotiations, backing out of a solemn agreement by tenant, in which he gained the advantage of further retaining the possession of premises for about nine months was not approved
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. . Date of hearing: 6th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--A tenant has sought leave to appeal; against the disposal by the High Court, of his writ petition against the order of eviction on the basis of compromise. The impugned order passed by the High Court reads as follows:-- "Parties in person alongwith their learned counsel. After detailed negotiation, the parties have arrived at a compromise, where under, respondent No.l has allowed the petitioner to continue to occupy the suit premises upto 31st October, 1989 (on regular payment of the monthly rent presently in currency), on which date the latter has convenanted and undertaken to hand over vacant possession whereof unto the former; failing which the impugned judgment shall become operative forthwith. This petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise set out above:" Learned counsel tried to argue the merits of the case. However, when questioned as to what is the reason for the petitioner's non-compliance with the compromise arrived at before the High Court after a "detailed negotiations learned counsel stated that the petitioner was not properly advised and that he would suffer irreparable loss if the impugned order is implemented. The petitioner was represented and assisted in the High Court by a learned Advocate. The compromise was reached after detailed negotiations. There is no justification for the petitioner for backing out of a solemn agreement in which he gained the advantage of further retaining the possession of the suit premises for about nine months. That being so, leave to appeal is refused. M.A.K./A-593/S Leave refused.