These are five connected writ petitions namely W.Ps. 4503, 4504, 4505, 4506 and 4454 of 1988, against the orders of the Rent Tribunals ordering the eviction of the tenants on the ground of default. All are being heard together and decided by a single order as they involve common questions of fact and law.
2. The landlady filed eviction applications against each one of the tenants of same premises. The Rent Controller framed issues regarding wilful default, second, with respect to mala fide, false and frivolous nature of the eviction applications and the third one related to relief. Both the parties led their evidence. The Rent Controller held the petitioner-tenants in each case to be in wilful default in payment of rent. There were certain receipts produced by the petitioner-tenants before the Rent Controller which were held to be not genuine. The Rent Controller accordingly ordered the eviction of the tenants by his order, dated 30th June, 1987, and allowed the two months time to vacate the premises.
3. The matter was then taken by the tenants in appeal which came up before an Additional District Judge. In the course of the hearing of the appeals the petitioner-tenants offered that if the landlady took oath on the Holy Book that she had not received rent for the disputed period by any means then they would accept her statement and will be ready to vacate the premises. The landlady took the prescribed oath and thereafter the learned Additional District Judge in accordance with the agreement between the parties dismissed the appeals and maintained their eviction. He, however, allowed them four months' time to deliver possession of the premises to the landlady.
4. A pre-admission hearing communication was sent to the landlady and she accompanied by her husband has appeared with their learned counsel. The question has been debated before me in the Constitutional jurisdiction and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at quite some length. I find it very difficult to overlook the conduct of the petitioners in making the offer of being bound by the oath taken by the landlady which she took accepting the offer. So, it is the conduct of the petitioners which, prima facie, stands in the way of grant of relief.
5. During the course of hearing there was impassioned appeal made by the tenant-petitioners to the landlady for time. After. Considerable negotiations the, parties have arrived at a conciliatory course which is in the following terms: Abdul Ghafoor petitioner in W.P. 4506-88 is running a `Sarya shop' in the premises for the last about twenty years. It has been agreed between him and the landlady who is accompanied by her husband and is fully advised by her counsel that Abdul Ghafoor be given a period of two years to vacate the premises in dispute so as to enable him to recover his money from the creditors in the market. It is further agreed that during this grace period ending on 30th September, 1950. Abdul Ghafoor will pay to the landlady instead of Rs.1,375 as B rent per month, a sum of Rs.2,000 for occupation and user. Abdul Ghafoor is present accompanied by his counsel and he undertakes to this Court to handover peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the landlady without her having resort to execution proceedings. He will also not commit any act which may be injurious or destructive to the property during this period of occupation. The amount of Rs. 2,000 per month on account of occupation and user will be remitted by the petitioner to the landlady by money order before the fifteenth of each month and in case of default he shall be liable to immediate eviction
6. In so far as Mehr Allah Bakhsh, Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Tahir and Intizar Hussain are concerned they are petty shop keepers. The first one is running a small hotel, second one is running a tea shop, the third one has a Mobil oil sale shop while the last one is an auto electrician. A compromise has been arrived at between them as well as the landlady inasmuch as they have also been allowed two years period to stay on the premises and on expiry of that period hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlady on 30th September, 1990, without her having resort to execution proceedings. Mehr Allah Bakhsh, Muhammad Tahir and Intizar Ahmad shall pay for occupation and user during this period of grace Rs. 300 per month whereas Muhammad Riaz who is already paying Rs. 300, shall continue paying that amount. Each one of these four tenants under eviction shall pay the monthly rent to the landlady at the aforementioned rate before 15th of each month and tender the same through money order and will desist from doing any act which may be impairing the value of the property in dispute. In case of any wilful default on the part of the tenant for any month in paying the agreed amount the party will be liable to immediate eviction.
7. I have considered the compromise arrived at between the parties. There is no manner of doubt that it is lawful and the parties have made adjustment between themselves. It advances public purpose by shortening litigation and saving time and expense. I accordingly feel no hesitation in blessing this compromise. All these five writ petitions are, therefore, decided and disposed of in terms of the compromise, subject to the undertakings given above.
8. The Rent Controller is directed to pay to the landlady the amount of rent deposited by each of the petitioners with him, within a period of three weeks of an application being moved for that purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioners would be good enough to handover the receipts of the deposits to the learned counsel for the respondent landlady.
9. Since both the parties have been heard, these cases are disposed of as notice cases. There will be in the circumstances no order as to costs.