Specific performance meaning in Urdu Performance ka dawa pending , Rent Court ko karaya dar se makan khali karwane se nahi rok sakta makan khali
 |
| Rent deed and Agreement to sell |
Specific performance meaning
Specific performance is a legal remedy that involves a court order requiring a party to fulfill the precise terms of a contract or agreement. Instead of seeking monetary compensation for a breach of contract, the aggrieved party asks the court to compel the other party to perform their contractual obligations as originally agreed upon. This remedy is often pursued when the subject matter of the contract is unique or when monetary damages are deemed inadequate to remedy the breach.
مخصوص کارکردگی tameel e mukhtas ایک قانونی ہے جس میں عدالتی حکم شامل ہوتا ہے جس میں کسی فریق کو معاہدے یا معاہدے کی قطعی شرائط کو پورا کرنے کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے۔ معاہدے کی خلاف ورزی کے لیے مالی معاوضہ طلب کرنے کے بجائے، متاثرہ فریق عدالت سے کہتا ہے کہ وہ دوسرے فریق کو اپنی معاہدہ کی ذمہ داریاں ادا کرنے پر مجبور کرے جیسا کہ اصل میں اتفاق کیا گیا تھا۔ یہ علاج اکثر اس وقت کیا جاتا ہے جب معاہدہ کا موضوع منفرد ہو یا جب خلاف ورزی کے تدارک کے لیے مالی نقصانات کو ناکافی سمجھا جاتا ہو۔
- Rent Controller ke pass dawa File kia gia .makan khali karwane ke liye
- Karya dar ne bataya ke karya dar ka agreement 11 mah ka tha ju ke khatam hu chuka
- Jiss ke baad agreement to sell dikhaya ke iss ne makan khareed lia hoa or 84 lakh biana de chuka
- Or karaya dar ka dawa specific performance civil court main pending hai.
- High court ne bht sari Judgements quote kien or qarar dia
- Ke jab agreement karyadari wala hu gia tha tu us ke baad wo revoked nahi hoa. Chahe us ki mudat khatam hu gai.
- Specific Performance ka dawa Civil Court me pending ha agar us main yeh kamyab hota hai tu ye dubara qabza le ga.
- High Court ne writ petition dismissed kar di or makan khali karne ka hukam dia
Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No.38170 of 2023
Sajid Iqbal Sheikh
Versus
ADJ, Lahore, etc.
S. No. of order/
Proceeding
Date of order/
Proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of
parties or counsel, where necessary
07.06.2023 Sheikh Imran Zulfiqar, Advocate for the petitioner.
The petitioner has invoked the constitutional
jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the judgment
dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Additional District
Judge, Lahore whereby on appeal filed by respondent
No.3, order dated 24.06.2022 of the Special Judge
(Rent), Lahore was set aside and eviction petition was
accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3
filed an eviction petition with the averments that the
petitioner obtained the disputed premises from him on
monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- vide oral agreement dated
01.01.2015, which was to expire on 30.11.2015 but
after the expiry of the said agreement he neither vacated
the disputed premises nor paid the rent. The
petitioner/respondent appeared and filed an application
for leave to defend the petition on the ground that
relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between
him and respondent No.3/ejectment petitioner inasmuch
as he had purchased the disputed premises from father
of respondent No.3 vide agreement to sell dated
26.03.2015 against the consideration of Rs.10,400,000/-
out of which Rs.8,400,000/- was paid and possession
was obtained. Said application of the petitioner was
W.P.No.38170 of 2023
allowed and out of the divergent pleadings of the
parties, issues were framed. After recording of
evidence of the parties, the Special Judge (Rent),
Lahore vide order dated 24.06.2022 dismissed the
eviction petition. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.3
preferred appeal before the Additional District Judge,
Lahore, which was allowed and petitioner was directed
to vacate demised premises within a period of 60 days
vide judgment impugned herein.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the impugned judgment suffers from misreading
and non-reading of evidence inasmuch as it only
discusses the evidence of RWs and states nothing about
the evidence of AWs. Maintains that the Appellate
Court while passing the impugned judgment failed to
consider that there was no written tenancy agreement
rather oral agreement was alleged without mentioning
its essential detail including the names of the witnesses,
hence, the same has no sanctity in the eye of law. In
this regard, he has placed reliance on the case of
Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. vs. Haji Muhammad
Baran Khan through L.Rs. and others (2013 SCMR
1300). Further contends that respondent No.3 has not
been able to establish the relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties and suit for specific
performance of the agreement filed by the petitioner is
also subjudice before the Civil Court, therefore,
impugned judgment is not sustainable in law.
4.
Heard.
5.
The petitioner claims to be in possession of
the disputed premises on the basis of an agreement to
sell, which has been denied by respondent No.3.
Although a suit for specific performance of the sai
W.P.No.38170 of 2023
agreement has been filed by the petitioner, which is
subjudice before the Civil Court wherein claim of the
petitioner is yet to be proved. However, title of
respondent No.3 over the premises in question is not
disputed and as the plea in rebuttal raised by the
petitioner is yet to be established, the owner of the
property by virtue of his title would be presumed to be
the landlord and the person in possession of the same
would be construed as tenant. Moreover, the tenancy
agreement is not necessarily required to be in writing
rather it may be oral and implied. Reliance in this
regard is placed on the case of Shajar Islam vs.
Muhammad Siddique and 2 others (PLD 2007
Supreme Court 45).
6.
Even otherwise, eviction petition was filed on
09.03.2016 whereas suit for specific performance of
contract was subsequently instituted on 18.03.2016.
Section 10 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009
adequately deals with any agreement executed between
the landlord and tenant after the tenancy agreement,
which is reproduced as under: -
“10. Effect of other agreement.- An agreement to
sell or any other agreement entered into between the
landlord and the tenant, after the execution of a
tenancy agreement, in respect of premises and for a
matter other than a matter provided under the
tenancy agreement, shall not affect the relationship
of landlord and tenant unless the tenancy is revoked
through a written agreement entered before the Rent
Registrar in accordance with provisions of section
5.”
The above provision of law clear indicates that any
other agreement between the landlord and tenant does
not affect their relationship inter se unless the tenancy
agreement is revoked. However, there is nothing on
record to suggest that the oral tenancy agreement
between the parties was revoked prior to execution of
W.P.No.38170 of 2023
agreement to sell alleged by the petitioner. In the same
situation the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of
Muhammad Nisar vs. Izahar Ahmad Sheikh and others
(PLD 2014 Supreme Court 347) has held as under: -
“----- when the tenant put up a plea in an ejectment
application that he had purchased the property then
he had to file a suit for his remedies and vacate the
premises and thereafter if he succeeded, he would
be entitled to take possession of the premises
again.”
Since the suit for specific performance of agreement to
sell filed by the petitioner is pending, he has to vacate
the disputed premises and thereafter if he succeeds, he
will be entitled to take possession of the same again.
The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is quite distinguishable for two reasons, firstly
the same pertains to a suit for specific performance of
an agreement pending before the Civil Court whereas
the instant matter is an eviction petition, and secondly
as observed supra, in the absence of contrary evidence
with regard to title of the disputed premises the owner
of the premises is to be presumed as landlord and the
person in its possession is supposed to be tenant.
7.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the Appellate
Court has rightly accepted the eviction petition of
respondent No.3 and I do not find any justifiable reason
to interfere with the same in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. This constitutional petition being devoid of
any merit is dismissed in limine.
(RAHEEL KAMRAN)
JUDGE
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
JUDGE
Comments
Post a Comment