' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave is sought against the order, dated 16-2-1997 made by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.3222 of 1997 dismissing the same in limine.
2. The dispute brought before the High Court related to an ejectment matter in which the petitioner was unsuccessful in objecting to her dispossession from the premises in dispute i.e. Property No.S.XVI-48-AS-17 situated in Muslim Colony, Muslim Street, Samandabad, Lahore. Her case in the Constitutional petitioner was that she had agreed to purchase the disputed property for a sum of Rs.7,50,000 out of which Rs.50,000 had been paid to one Taj-ud-Din Sherwani, guardian of the landlord, while the remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000 had to be paid before the Sub-Registrar after he would succeed in obtaining permission from the learned Guardian Judge. The petitioner is entitled to continue as tenant in the premises even for the said reason.
3. The Constitutional petition was dismissed by the High Court after observing that the petitioner had failed to make a mention to the original ejectment order, dated 31-7-1994 either in the petition or even to the recall of the same and making of another order of ejectment on account of her failure to pay the costs. Paragraph 5 of the impugned order reads thus:-- "Be that as it may, I am fully convinced that the findings of the two Courts below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record and all the relevant facts have also been taken into consideration by the learned Additional District Judge who disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 18-12-1996,"
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has simply reiterated the plea to the effect that she was entitled to relief prayed for before the Rent Authorities as also the High Court as a tenant finding support from the agreement to purchase the disputed premises for Rs.7,00,000, as above. We are afraid the plea loses sight of the fact that the order made by the High Court, after taking into consideration the attending facts and circumstances of the case, has not been shown to be suffering from any infirmity in law. The endeavour being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to have the impugned order, dated 16-2-1997 set aside by this Court will tantamount to substituting our own decision for that of the Rent Tribunals, which cannot be gone ahead.
Moreover, the conduct of the petitioner was rightly taken into consideration by the Appellate Court as also the High Court when it was decided and upheld respectively that the petitioner had been adopting such devices as would prolong the proceedings and delay the disposal of the ejectment application. It is not the case of the petitioner that she took the matter to the Courts of plenary jurisdiction for the purposes of obtaining specific performance of the alleged contract with the guardian of the landlords. Looked at from whatever angle, the instant petition is sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. Order accordingly.