2002 PLP 1007 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Claim of tenant to be accommodated in newly‑constructed building‑‑‑Landlord had assured the tenants that after reconstruction of the building in question they would be accommodated therein but after reconstruction of building landlord failed to honour his commitment‑‑‑Tenant/petitioner then agitated the matter in Constitutional petition before High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Proceedings before High Court were not appropriate for resolving purely factual controversy‑‑ Substantive relief could be granted by directing respondent‑landlord to put petitioners in possession only through properly instituted civil suit as respondent was not a statutory functionary‑‑‑Constitutional petition being incompetent was dismissed. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi for Petitioners. Manzoor Ahmad for Respondent No.

1. SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑‑‑The petitioners were tenants of the respondent No. 1 in respect of a building owned by the aforesaid respondent. In 1976 the respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement with the respondent No.2 which, inter, alia, stipulated that the existing building would be demolished, a new multi‑storeyed building would be constructed by the respondent, No.2 through his own resources and thereafter, the responaent No.2 would relocate 128 existing tenants of the respondent No.1 (including the petitioners) in the new building but also induct new tenants in the remaining part of the building Till such time that the building was demolished and , a‑ new building was reconstructed the respondent No. 1 provided temporary shelter to the petitioners for carrying on their respective businesses. However, it appears that subsequently differences and disputes arose between the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and consequently the commitment to relocate the petitioner in the newly‑constructed building has not been honoured. It has been brought to our notice that the respondent No.2. has `filed Suit No.32 of 1999 against the respondent No. 1 claiming a declaration as to his title of the new building and also sought mandatory injunction of possession on the original side of this Court. The respondent No. 1, however, in the counter‑affidavit filed in this, petition has taken the plea that while they acknowledged the petitioners righ to be accommodated in the main building they are, unable to afford substantive relief inasmuch as possession of the building has not .yet handed over to them by the respondent No.2. Be that as it may, we are of the view that these proceedings are not appropriate for resolving the purely factual controversy. Moreover, in case substantive relief could be granted by directing the respondent; No. 2 to put the petitioner in possession the same could only be done only through properly instituted civil suit as the respondent No.2 is not a statutory functionary. The remedy of being impleaded as a proper party in Suit No.32 of 1999 is also available to the petitioners who could apply for necessary relief in those proceedings. For the foregoing reasons we find this petition to be incompetent and dismiss it in limme alongwith the listed applications. H.B.T./M‑317/K Petition dismissed.