ORDER AHMAD KHAN. J. - Petitioner claiming himself to be a purchaser of a house No. B-VII/250 situate in CJali (ihaurian, Mohallah Qanungoiyan, (iujrat City, vide registered sale deed dated 26.2.1'>'>2 filed ejectment petition against respondents N. 2 & 3 alleging therein that they are in- possession of the properly in dispute as tenants, it was contested on the basis of title and the learned Rent Compiler held that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parlies the petitioner should first get his title established inasmuch as he is not proved to be owner of the property in question, the ejectment petition was, therefore, dismissed vide order dated 30.7.1992. This order was challenged by.The petitioner in appical before District Court. However, the same was ultimately dismissed, as withdrawn by making of unilateral statements that compromise has taken place. The order of dismissal passed in appeal is dated 30.3.1993. And is reproduced as underl During the pendency o! The appeal, the petitioner forcibly misled respondcnts'No. 2&3 who appear !o he poor helpless oeeupanls of the house; Consequently. a criminal ease under section 447/448/148/149 P.P.C, has been registered against the petitioner and. Is now pending before Illaqa Magistrate for forcible eviction of the respondents on 28,3.PW3. An application-was bled by Mst.
Hamida Bibi respondent before learned Lower Appellate Court wherein it was prayed that contempt proceedings should be initialed against the petitioner and possession may also be restored inasmuch as during the pendency of appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ciujral, she. Has been forcibly dispossessed by the petitioner and hence a serious contempt has been committed. This application was fixed for 30..V1003. Which Was the date llxed lor arguments in the appeal and was that very das. Arguments were addressed on the application filed by the respondents, which was allowed vide the impugned order, it is admitted in reply to the application lhat a criminal ease, tinder sections 447/448/148/140/ P.P.C', of Mst. Hamida Bibi respondent No. 1' at P.S.B-Division. Ciujral. Learned lower Appellate Court before whom the appeal has been pending, vide order dated 31.3.1093 directed restoration of possession. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.
2. Ude order dated 5.4.1003, I had. Issued a pre-admission notice to respondents No. 2<.V:3 for today, In pursuance ol the notice issued by this Court, respondent No. 2 who is and old and an illiterate hid has appeared and has denied as having surrendered possession of the house with her free-will. She has staled that the respondents No. 2&3 who are |ft>or and helpless persons have been forcibly ousted bv the petitioner and hence have ridiculed the authority ol the Court.
3. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Vehniwal, Advocate learned counsel for the petition has contended lhat respondents No. 2A3 handed-over, possession of the house in question wit-h their free will and as no proceedings were pending belor'e the learned*First Appellate Court at the lime when the application was decided as the appeal was withdrawn on 30.3.1993. Hence, learned Additional District Judge, respondent No. I. Had no jurisdiction ro pass these impugned order and, therefore, on this short ground the said order is liable U\ be set-aside. Learned counsel, however, has conceded that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner for forcible eviction of respondents No. 2<&3 had also admitted that the ejectment petition filed buy the petitioner had been dismissed by the learned Rent controller on the ground lhat he has pot been able to prove that he is the owner of the house in question. He has further conceded that, the possession was taken by the petitioner during the pcndccy of the appeal which was withdrawn unilaterally when an application had already been filed by the respondent that she has been forcibly ejected, hence her possession may be restored. No deed of compromise or receipt about payment of any consideration was placed on record. ,
4. I have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner today as to for what consideration the respondents No. Lit 3 relinquished their possession and handed over the same to the petitioner, learned counsel states that they received money. I have asked learned counsel to produce any receipt with regard to the payment of money, learned counsel states that no receipt was obtained nor any writing was obtained with regard to the relinquishment of possession. Learned counsel further admits that there is.No written deed of compromise. Resultantly, it is quite clear that respondents No. 2it3 have been dispossessed by the petitioner without having recourse to legal proceedings, and, therefore, this being Constitutional discretionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of a person who does not come to C ourt with clean hands and whose conduct is not aboveboard. Respondents were dispossessed and application for restoration of possession was filed during the pendency of the appeal. Hence the Court had the jurisdiction to dispose of the same, even if the appeal was withdrawn during the pendency thereof. Withdrawal of appeal in the circumstances of this ease speaks volumes about the truthfulness of the case of the respondents, it is an established principle of law that even a void order is not necessarily to be struck down in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The present is one of those cases where writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in aid of injustice and in favour of a person who has not come to the Court with clean hands.
Resultantly. I see no force in this writ petition, the same is dismissed in limine. However, if the petitioner has any title in the property in question, he can file a civil suit for establishing his title in the property and possession thereof. For the present, he is not entitled to retain possession ol the house in question. With these observation, writ petition stands disposed of.