' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---Petitioners Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah and others seek for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22-1-1995 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Mirza Maqbool Ahmad, predecessor-in-interest of respondents was transferred premises bearing Survey Nos.B/100-1800 and 1801 under Settlement Scheme in Hyderabad in the year 1960. Syed Bachal Shah, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who was in possession of the same, was served with notice under section 30 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. He recognized Mirza Maqbool Ahmad as his landlord and started paying him monthly rent regularly, However, in the year 1966 Syed Bachal Shah approached the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad, for transfer of the property, but he was declined on 18-11-1996. He filed revision petition before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad, who accepted his request and ordered for the transfer of the property to him. Mirza Maqbool Ahmad challenged the abovesaid order in the High Court of Sindh, through writ petition, which was dismissed. He approached this Court and challenged the abovesaid order. On 11-6-1983 this Court set aside the order of the High Court and maintained that of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad. After decision of the Supreme Court the Settlement Authorities issued P.T.D. In favour of Mirza Maqbool Ahmad. On 26-7-1983 Mirza Maqbool Ahmad again sent notice to the petitioners for payment of rent from October, 1967, but they failed to make payment of the rent. Besides, in the notice he also stated that the house be vacated as he required it for personal bona fide use. Having no response from the petitioners Mirza Maqbool Ahmad filed rent application before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal need. The petitioners contested the application. Issues were framed. Parties led evidence. On 31-8-1987 the learned Rent Controller passed ejectment order against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the abovesaid order in the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit, which was dismissed on 16-2-1989. The petitioners filed petition before this Court. On 11-5-1989 the petitioners showed their readiness to withdraw the petition provided the respondents allowed them one year time to vacate the premises. The Order is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:-- "By any agreement reached between the parties petitioners have withdrawn this petition on respondent's agreeing to allow petitioners one year time to vacate the premises. The agreement between the parties is placed on record.
' In view of the agreement between the parties, the petition is dismissed, as withdrawn, and petitioners are granted one year's time to vacate the premises. In case of petitioners' failure to do so as above, the order of ejectment in respect of demised premises passed against the petitioners shall be executed against them."
3. The petitioners failed to vacate the premises within the specified period. Mirza Maqbool Ahmad approached the Rent Controller for ejectment of the petitioners. On 30-8-1990 the petitioners were ejected from the premises and the possession thereto was handed over to the respondents. The petitioners challenged the above said order in the High Court of Sindh, which was dismissed on 17- 10-1990. However, on 2-2-1991 the petitioners filed application under section 144(1), C.P.C. For restitution of possession of the premises bearing City Survey No,B/100-1800 on the plea that the Additional Deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad, vide his order dated 28-1-1991 had deleted the abovesaid Survey No, from the P.T.D. Of the respondents and had decided in favour of the petitioners. The respondents contested the application. However, on 23-1-1992 the learned Rent Controller directed the respondents to hand over the possession of the premises to the petitioners and actually the possession was handed over to the petitioners. Mirza Maqbool Ahmad challenged the abovesaid order in revision petition before the High Court, who was pleased to set aside abovesaid order and directed the learned Rent Controller to issue writ of possession and also take necessary measurement to put back the respondents in vacant possession of the premises viz. City Survey No,B/100-1800. The petitioners have challenged the abovesaid order before this Court.
4. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court, for the petitioners. He has contended that in fact the premises bearing City Survey No, B/100-1800 was maliciously included in the P.T.D. Of the respondents and the same fraud was corrected by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad on 28-1-1991. The High Court as such had seriously erred in setting aside the order dated 23-1-1992 passed by the learned Rent Controller directing the respondents to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the petitioners. He contended that as a matter of fact the application was under section 22 of the Sindh Rent Restriction Ordinance, but section 144(1), C.P.C. Was wrongly applied. The High Court thus erroneously held that application of the petitioners under section 144(1), C.P.C. Was not maintainable. He contended that wrong quotation of the section would not make their application liable to dismissal. The thrust of his argument was that on technical grounds the High Court had set aside the order of the Rent Controller. Thus, this Court may grant leave to appeal and examine the provisions of section 22 of the Sindh Rent Restriction Ordinance.
5. We are not convinced by his arguments, mainly for the reason that before the Supreme Court of Pakistan the petitioners had voluntarily agreed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondents if they were given a period of one year. They did not comply with their commitments. The respondents, therefore, were compelled to seek help of the Rent Controller and they succeeded in getting possession of the premises. The possession of the premises was given to the respondents on the commitment of the petitioners made before this Court. They could not go now out of it. The petitioners would not be allowed to blow hot and cold simultaneously. Once they had accepted the respondents to be their landlord they are bound by it. In such view of the matter, we do not see any defect with the order passed by the High Court. There is no merit in the petition, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.