TARIQ JAVAID, J. --- This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ali Pur, Muzaffargarh, whereby order dated 30.5.2009 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal was set aside.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that respondent No. 3 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner on 25.9.1999, which was decided on the basis of compromise recorded on 5.7.2002 to the effect that both the parties agreed and made consenting statement that the tenant shall be bound to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month without fail and on the basis of his statement ejectment petition was disposed of. However, the tenant defaulted in payment of rent for a long period. The landlord aggrieved of the tenant's failure to pay rent filed an execution petition along with prayer for the recovery of Rs. 36,700/-. The tenant filed objections to the execution petition. The learned Rent Tribunal accepted the application vide order dated 20.5.2003. Whereafter an application under Order 21, Rule 29, C.P.C. Was filed on the ground that decree was not executable, the same was dismissed and civil revision No. 627 of 2003 was preferred in this Court. During the course of hearing it transpired that an earlier civil revision No. 566 of 2003 had already been dismissed whereupon Mr. Haider Jamal Maitla, the then advocate appearing therein pleaded that he was not informed about the earlier petition and hence the civil revision was dismissed in limine. The case remained pending before the learned Executing Court.
Once again objections under Order 21, Rule 29, C.P.C. Were filed wherein it was said that the execution petition was not maintainable. Case remained pending for a long time, arguments were heard and ultimately application was allowed vide order dated 19.10.2006 wnicn was assailed before the learned Appellate Court who passed the impugned judgment.
3. Perusal of the record amply demonstrates that this is a case of gross misuse of procedure provided by law. The petitioner having entered into agreement to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.
5000/- per month was liable to be evicted on his failure to honour his commitment. All the subsequent proceedings instituted by the petitioner were based on male fide so much so that civil revision No. 566 of '2003 was dismissed by this Court and with recklessly disregard to the consequences and without disclosing the fact of earlier civil revision having been dismissed, another civil revision No. 627 of 2005 was preferred in this Court which was dismissed on 4.3.2004.
The petitioner appears to have no respect for law. He has misused the process of Court to his ultimate advantage; hence he is not entitled to any relief. This petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.
20,000/- to be recovered through Executing Court. The petitioner shall be evicted forthwith in terms of compromise dated 5.7.2002, whereafter the petitioner has been mis-using the process of law.
With this direction this writ petition is dismissed. .