MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J. This judgment will dispose of W.P.154-R/89 and W.P.87-R/90 as the same question of law and fact arc involved in both the cases.
2. Through this constitutional petition the petitioners have assailed the order dated 29.7.1989 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the petitioners' application for treating the disputed shops as available property and transferring the same in their names.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the property bearing No. D/2353, situated in the area of Chauk Matti, Lahori, Lahore Gate consisting of 9 shops and a residential unit in occupation of one Miraj Din, .Was purchased in open auction, held in October, 1960 by Mst. Sardar Begum. She entered into an agreement of association with her brother Muhammad Jamil, whereunder 3/4th share was given to Muhammad Jamil, who has since died. Muhammad Asif Ali and Muhammad - Bashir Wasif respondents No.2 and 3 are legal representatives of Muhammad Jamil, deceased.
One shop in the disputed: property was in occupation of one Hafiz Noor Muhammad and was transferred to him. The petitioner claimed that 8 other shops were still available for transfer for which they made an application on 27.S.1989 which was dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 29.7.1989, without hearing the petitioners. Hence, the impugned order was a nullity in the eye of law. On- the other had the learned counsel for respondent 2 to 4 pointed out that the writ petitioners were guilty of suppressing material facts. He pointed out that the petitioners were tenants under-respondents 2 to 4, who had issued notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 to them. They executed rent notes in favour of resp. No.2 to 4 and started paying rent ot them. Thereafter answering respondents initiated ejectment proceedings against them. The petitioners admitted before the Rent Controller that the respondent were owners of the disputed shops and that they were tenants under them. The petitioners' defence was struck OF and ejectment order was passed against them on 20.6.1988. They preferred an appeal against the said order but entered into a compromise with the answering respondents. They made statements before the court that they would vacate the premises within 6 months i.e. On 13.8.1989 and shall continue to pay rent to the landlords regularly. The learned Addl: District Judge disposed of the appeal on the basis of compromise between the parties vide order dated 12.2.1989. The learned counsel further submitted that the writ petitioners availed of the time allowed to them for vacating the premises and shortly before expiry of the said period filed a miscellaneous application with mala i.e intention for prolonging their stay in the disputed premises. He also urged that on finding that the PTD in respect of the entire property had already been issued, the Deputy Administrator (Residual Property), respondent No. 1 refrained from entertaining the application and advised the petitioners to seek remedy in a proper court of law. This is evident from perusal of Memo:355- 89/10304-DSC II, dated 1.8.1989. The learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that according to the PA. List of Lahore Municipal Corporation the assessment of the entire disputed property consisting of 9 shops and residential unit was Rs. 1210/- per annum and the same value was shown in the auction list. The PLD was also issued for the full property and no portion of the same was. Available for transfer. The learned counsel also submitted that the writ petition merited dismissal for laches because the cause of action had accured with the auction of the property held on 10.11.1960 and the petitioners neither challenged the auction nor issuance of title deeds to respondents 2 to 4. They never applied for transfer of any portion of the property allegedly remaining undisposed of under any scheme. Hence the writ petition merited dismissal. He also submitted that no judicial proceedings had commenced merely with the filing of miscellaneous application. Hence, hearing of the applicants in respect of such a miscellaneous application was riot necessary. In this connection he placed reliance on Mir Salah-ud-Din Vs. Administrator (Residual Property) and other (1983 Law Notes (Lahore) 763). Lastly he submitted that even if the impugned order was void the writ petition merited dismissal in view of the unclean conduct of the petitioners.
4. There is considerable force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners appear to have approached the Court with upcanal hands. They did not disclose necessary facts pertaining to the rent proceedings, particularly the last order dated 12.2.1989, passed on the compromise between the parties, whereunder the petitioners' were bound to vacate the premises up to 13.8.1989. The said order was challenged by the other tenants through Writ Petitions No.5286 of 1989 to 5288 of 1989 and W.P. 5293 to 5296 of 1989 and W.P.47-R.90, which were dismissed by my learned brother Ahsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J. On 5.9.1989. Hence, they are not entitled to the. Discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Their petition merits dismissal for non-disclosure of the necessary facts pertaining to the litigation between the parties under the Rent Restriction Act. It may also be mentioned that: another tenant named Muhammad Ifzal had filed W.P.47-R of 1990 against the same order which has been impugned herein. The same was dismissed by this Court on 24.6.i990 because the learned counsel for the petitioner had chosen not to press the same. Earlier, the stay matter in W.P.47-R of 1990 was fixed before another Bench and possession of Muhammad Ifzal, petitioner was ordered to be preserved vide order dated 11.2,1990. The stay order was subsequently vacated by another order dated 4.4.1990. The following paragraph from the order may be reproduced with advantage:- "The conduct of the petitioner is that he entered into a compromise, availed period up to 13.8.1989, then challenged the compromise order in writ petition. Thereafter he filed the present writ petition but did not make mention of litigation on rent side. This is the misconduct of the worst possible type. The same cannot be encouraged.
In the case of Ramzan Vs. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others (PLD 1968 Lahore 258) the petitioner did not disclose the facts pertaining to the civil litigation in which the learned District Judge had also refused to grant temporary injunction to the petitioner. In this background it was observed as under:- "Since the petitioner seeks to invoke, what after all is equitable jurisdiction of this Court and is guilty of suppression of material facts, I regard it to be a fit case in which to refuse him any relief regardless of the merits of his case."
The petitioner had made a firm commitment before the learned Addl: District Judge to vacate the disputed shop till 13.8.1989 and order to that effect was passed by the court on 12.2.1989. The petitioner was allowed time for six months for doing the needful. He availed of the said period and shortly before the expiry of the same instituted the present writ petition without disclosing the solemn commitment made before the appellate court in the rent proceedings for vacating the premise till 13.8.1989. Thus by suppressing the material facts he succeeded in obtaining the status quo order on 7.8.1989. Had the true facts been disclosed, perhaps the writ petition would not have been admitted for regular hearing or at least status quo order would not have been passed in favour of the petitioners. A party who approaches the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan as held in the case of Sardar Muhammad Vs. Deputy Administrator Residual Property and another (NLR 1990 SCJ 314).
5. It is also borne out from the record that the petitioner, had admitted the title of respondents No.2 to 4. They were aware of the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioners for the last about 30 years. They neither challenged the I title of respondents 2 to 4 nor ever applied for transfer of any portion of the property in their favour under the Settlement Schemes including Settlement Scheme No.VIII. There is also considerable weight in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that no judicial proceedings had commenced with the filing of a miscellaneous application for transfer of the property. On finding that property had already been transferred and PTD issued in favour of respondents 2 to 4., respondent No. 1 merely refused to entertain the application and advised the petitioner to seek remedy before the!Proper forum. He had not fixed any date for hearing of the said application and had merely requisitioned the record by a certain date but after perusing the record he refused to entertain the application because no new application could be entertained after the repeal of the Settlement laws to re-open the transfers finalised long ago. The impugned l order docs not suffer from any legal infirmity.
6. For the foregoing reasons I find no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with costs.