MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 14-5-1980 whereby respondent's constitutional petition arising out of a dispute regarding an evacuee shop was allowed, has been brought to challenge through this petition for leave to appeal.
2. A shop in possession of the petitioner was made the subject-matter of several eviction petitions filed from the respondent side against him on the basis that it stood transferred to that party. Each the the petitioner while accepting the said transfer and its effect of his having become a statutory tenant, entered into compromise with the landlady and obtained concessions. The last concession was that he was to remain in possession only till 29th of September, 1974. He, however, instead of honouring that commitment submitted a form for transfer of the shop in his possession and obtained a transfer order on 25th January, 1974 in his favour whereby it was treated as a different shop. It was given a fresh No. 112-A and was transferred to the petitioner on the basis of his possession. The respondent challenged the transfer in the High Court through a Constitutional petition which was allowed.
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition have vehemently raised to-fold contentions: One, that the petitioner was not bound by his admissions in so far as the realities about the shop in dispute are concerned; and, to, that notwithstanding the admissions of the petitioner the findings of fact reached by the Settlement Authority in the fresh order, dated 25th of January, 1974, have been annulled by the High Court without finding any serious fault with them.
4. Grant of leave to appeal by this Court is within discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. The fact that the petitioner admitted the respondent as landlady in several proceedings and treated the transfer to her of the property in dispute as valid in solemn proceedings before Courts of law, are not such admissions which can be ignored in a discretionary jurisdiction. He tried to take undue advantage of the the allowed to him by the landlady and got the matter re-opened which had finally been settled in accordance with his own admissions. In these circumstances we do not consider it a fit case nor the petitioner a fit person for the grant of discretionary relief by grant of leave to appeal. The petition accordingly is dismissed.