MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J,---This petition for leave to appeal directed against order dated 10-4- 1995 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, arises from the facts that Raja Muhammad Gul respondent was tenant under Ch. Munawar Khan petitioner, of shop situate in Bone Chowk, Talagang Road, Chakwal, at the rate of Rs.500 per month. Ch. Munawar Khan filed application for ejectment of Raja Muhammad Gul respondent from the shop on the ground of reconstruction, before the Rent Controller, Chakwal, on 10-.2-1982. The application was ultimately allowed by the Rent Controller. The appeal filed by respondent was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved thereby respondent filed writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. During pendency of the writ petition, parties arrived at a compromise. Disposing of the writ petition in terms of compromise deed, the High Court, vide order dated 21-10-1990 directed that Raja Muhammad Gul shall vacate the disputed shop and also remove its rubble (Malbah) whereafter Ch. Munawar Khan petitioner shall reconstruct the shops within a period of one year and out of those shops rent out one to the tenant/respondent herein at the market rates. After constructing the shops, Raja Muhammad Gul, on 28-4-1992, filed application under section 13(5-B) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for restoration of possession of shop to him per order of the High Court dated 21-10-1990. The application was resisted. Issues were framed. Parties produced their evidence. The Rent Controller, vide order. Dated 24-1-1994 allowed the application directing the petitioners to restore the possession of the shop to the respondent. The petitioners filed appeal against this order before the District Judge, Chakwal who vide judgment dated 3-7-1994, while maintaining the findings of the Rent Controller on all the issues, framed following additional issues:--- "What should be the rent of disputed shop after reconstruction?" OPP and remanded the case for decision on this issue. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed S.A.O., in Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, which was dismissed vide impugned order with the direction that "the learned Rent Controller shall fix the quantum bf rent at the prevailing market rate and hand over the possession of the shop to the respondent". Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised following points before us:---
(1) That provisions of section 13(5-B) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance being inconsistent with rights conferred by Article 23 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 are void;
(2) That provisions of section 13(5-B) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance are violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution in that, the aforesaid section places restrictions only on the landlord without providing any guarantee to escape from the mala fide legal proceedings initiated by an old tenant; and
(3) That the application of the respondents for the restoration of possession of shop to him was barred by the, in that, the reconstruction of the shop was complete on 1-4-1992 whereas the application for the restoration of the shop was filed on 28-4-1992, although under section 13(5-B) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance the old tenant was obliged to file an application/petition before the completion of the construction.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care.
We do not agree with him. We find that points at Nos.1 and 2 were not raised before the Rent Controller, Additional District Judge and the High Court as well. Even otherwise, the provisions of section 13(5-B) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance do not appear to be violative of the relevant Articles of the Constitution guaranteeing Fundamental Rights. As regards point at No.3, we find that Manzoor Hussain A.W.1 has clearly stated that the Local Commission had inspected the spot on 30- 5-1992 and by that the the, reconstruction of the shops was not complete. Furthermore, admittedly, the possession of the shop was delivered to the petitioner by the respondent in pursuance to the compromise and under the orders of the High Court dated 21-10-1990. He undertook to restore possession of the shop to the respondent after reconstruction. He cannot be allowed to resile from the terms of his compromise on basis whereof he had obtained the possession of the shop from the respondent. The orders passed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court as well are just and fair in the circumstances of the case.
4. No case for interference with the impugned judgment is made out. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.