1. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---Khawaja Muhammad Naseem filed an ejectment petition against the petitioners in the Court of Rent Controller, Lahore seeking their ejectment from Bungalow No. 197- Tariq Block, New Garden Town, Lahore. Ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent and damage to the property whereby its value and utility had been impaired. The petitioners contested the petition. The Rent Controller framed the following two issues:--
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?
(2) Relief.
2. On 31-10-1987 the ejectment petition was allowed. Petitioners were directed to hand over vacant possession of the property to the owner by 30-11-1987.
3. Against the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioners filed appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge who by order dated 25-6-1989 dismissed the same.
4. Thereafter the petitioners invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. A learned Judge of the said Court dismissed the Constitution petition in limine by order dated 4-10-1989. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the Lahore High Court.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. He argued that if at all the petitioners were to be ejected then the forum was not the Rent Controller. Respondent ought to have invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
6. It was next contended that the compromise referred to in the order of the Rent Controller and the appellate Court was not legally sustainable. It was contrary to Qanun-e-Shahadat. Hence this could not form the basis of petitioners' ejectment.
7. Berth the contentions have no force. It is not at all possible to ignore the compromise which was voluntarily entered into between the parties without any undue influence from any side.
8. Learned counsel did not challenge the execution of the compromise. The Rent Controller duly noted this compromise and that is why observed, "There is a compromise Exh. A-4 which reveals that the parties had entered into a compromise thereby the respondents admitted the petitioner as the undisputed owner and promised to hand over the vacant possession of the house in question to the petitioner by 10-12-1986-----"It was further observed by the Rent Controller, " ....The respondents' intention to surrender possession to the petitioner by admitting him to be the real owner but their reluctance to admit tenancy is only aimed to avoid the payment of the arrear of rental amount."
9. This being the conduct of the petitioners they cannot be permitted to take shelter behind the technicalities. As a matter of fact they cannot be allowed even to approbate and reprobate. This petition therefore must fail and is accordingly dismissed.