The present Petition was filed by Petitioner Dost Muhammad and the facts leading to the petition are as follows :-
2. Respondent No. 2 i. e. Muhammad Masood filed rent application before the Rent Controller, Cantonment for ejectment of the Petitioner on the ground of default and on the ground that the landlord needed the premises bona fide for himself. Respondent No. 2 pleaded that the premises No. 189, Gali No. 10, Punjab Colony, Karachi was rented out on the monthly rent of Rs. 50 to the Petitioner. The Controller by an order dated 27.4-1978 dismissed the rent application. An appeal was preferred by Respondent No. 2 before the District Judge, Karachi who while perusing the case papers found that the deposition of Respondent No. 2 before the Rent Controller was not signed.
The matter was remanded for re-examination of the Respondent No. 2. The Rent Controller recorded the deposition of Respondent No. 2 on 2-5-1979 wherein the chance for cross- examination was given to the present Petitioner. The papers were sent back to the District Judge who finally by his judgment dated 17th April, 1980 ordered that the Petitioner be ejected from the premises. Aggrieved by the order of the District Judge the Petitioner filed the present petition.
3. The case of petitioner is that be was condemned unheard and that he was not given any chance to establish his case. Secondly the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction because the issue with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant remained undecided and in fact the Petitioner was not the tenant of Respondent No. 2. It is argued by the Advocate of the petitioner that father of respondent No. 1 was in fact the landlord who had inducted him as the tenant and to whom he had paid the rents.
4. The case of Respondent No. 2 is that the premises in question were leased out to him by -be Cantonment Board on 8-2-1975 and that he is the landlord and that it was he who rented out the premises to the Petitioner. In. The counter affidavit he has recited the facts and denied the averments made by the Petitioner. He asserts that Petitioner is his tenant. The father of Respondent No. 2 has nothing to do with the premises. No rents were offered to the father of the respondent nor the rents were sent by money order. In an earlier application by the Petitioner before the Rent Controller (Rent Application No. 12/1979) in which the father of Respondent No. 2 made it clear that he was not the landlord but his son (Respondent No. 2) was the landlord. On 9-3-1978 when the case was fixed before the Rent Controller, the petitioner refused to give any statement and, therefore, his side was closed. The petitioner was guilty of protracting the case before the Rent Controller and on number of hearings, he sought adjournment and that he did not wish to be examined. It is further averred that the petitioner did not come with clean hands in as much as in the meantime he had moved the Cantonment Board for the lease of the premises for 99 years, pleading that he was in possession of it.
5. The Advocates of the respective parties, were heard at length. In regard to the issue of relationship that of landlord and tenant there is deposi--tion of respondent No. 2 before the Rent Controller wherein he has proved that the premises were leased out for 99 years by the Board of Cantonment somewhere in February, 1975 and that it was he who had rented out the pre--mises to the petitioner. The petitioner did cross-examine him. In the cross examination it is not made out by the petitioner that the premises in question belonged to the father of respondent No. 2 nor it is proved that the petitioner was inducted to be the tenant of father of Respondent No. 2. On careful examination of the deposition, it is clear that the relationship that of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties and the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction. The argument of the learned counsel of the petitioner further are that the petitioner was nut given chance to be examined though he made application to that effect before the Rent Controller. The Controller rejected these applications on the ground that the matter remanded to him had a limited scope is as much as he was ordered to examine only the landlord respondent NQ. Will was cross-Remained by the petitioner. The Rent Controller while rejecting the application was correct because he could not examine the petitioner at that stage. The side of the petitioner was closed. It was closed due to his refusal to be examined and further it appears from) the diary sheet which is at Exh. X/3 that series of adjournments were granted and these adjournments were mainly at the request of the opponent/petitioner.The order sheet dated 9-3-1978 reads that the opponent refused to be examined. It appears from the order sheet that mostly the case was adjoined at the instance of the opponent and lastly when the opponent was pressed that he be examined, he flatly refused to do so. His side was, therefore, closed. It is strange conduct of the petitioner and the Rent Controller had no other go butter to close his side. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner was condemnation unheard. He was given chance to cross examine and he did cross-examine.
6. In regard to the default to the payment of rents the respondent No. 2 was confronted with the money order receipts which were signed by one Parvez known to be the son of respondent No. 2 but the same were denied, It is averred by Respondent No. 2 in his deposition and in cross- examination -that Parvez was not his son. The name of his son was Umar Farooq. These money order receipts do not appear to be a valid tender of the rents, as such on the face of it default appears to have been proved but still even if the default is left out there is a good case of respondent No. 2 in respect of claiming the property far the bona fide use for him and his family. He avers that he has got 7 issues, one were and himself and they are putting up in the house of his father which is too small to accommodate the large family. There is no other house owned by Respondent No. 2. The bona fide of Respondent No. 2 go unchallenged because he seems to be sincere in making the claim to accommodate his family in the said premises. His need appears to be bona fide. This issue definitely goes in his favour.
7. The Advocate of the Respondent No. 2 has made certain submission emphasising the fact that the conduct of petitioner was not equitable and fair and it was at his instance the matter protracted before the Rent Controller for sufficiently long years and then in the end the petitioner even refused to be examined. The petitioner has not come with clean hands inasmuch as, gaining time, be made an application before the Board of Cantonment that the same of premises be leas. I out to him on the ground that he was in possession. It is further submitted by the advocate of the Respondent that the possession of the petitioner was by virtue of being a tenant and that his petition before the Board of Cantonment shows his mala fides and unclean hands. I am referred to certain authorities outstanding being PLD 1966 Quetta 25 wherein it is held as follows "It is a settled principle of law and equity that a person invoking th6 equitable jurisdiction of the Court should come with clean hands. Any body whose own role is not above board should not be allowed to invoke that discretionary jurisdiction.".
8. It was also held in PLD 1966 Lah. '68 that the vexatious conduct disentitles the petitioner to discretionary relief. Similarly with advantage one can refer to PLD 1969 Dacca 516 (52 i) it is observed as follows "The jurisdiction that we have been called upon to exercise is not one which can be invoked by one who is guilty of bad faith and unconscion--able conduct. The right is in the nature of ex debito justitiae, but will only be granted if the Petitioner can show that his conduct has not been such as to disentitle him "of such a relief. This jurisdiction of ours should not be exercised if it leads ultimately to a patent injustice,"
9. The District Judge in his judgment has given a proper relief to Respondent No. 2 and it seems to this Court that he has considered and dealt with all these aspects of the ' case. On the whole the petitioner bad neither any case before the District Judge nor he has any case before this Court in the Constitutional Petition. Consequently the Writ Petition filed by him is dismissed with no order as to costs.