Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 13

  West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S. 13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Ejectment of respondents---Rent Controller dismissed application for ejectment as relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved---Petitioner forcibly ejected respondents during pendency of appeal and then unilaterally withdrew appeal---Appellate Court below, restored possession to respondents on their application---Validity---Respondents having been dispossessed by petitioner without having recourse to legal proceedings, Constitutional discretionary jurisdiction could not be exercised in favour of a person who had not come to Court with clean hands and whose conduct was not above board-- Respondents were dispossessed and application for restoration of possession having been filed during pendency of appeal, Court had the jurisdiction to dispose of the same, even if appeal was withdrawn during the pendency thereof---Petition was one of those cases where Constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised in aid of injustice and in favour of person who had not come to Court with clean hands---Respondents were thus, entitled to retain possession of premises until lawfully ejected by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Void order--- ---- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Void order is not necessarily to be struck down in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Muhammad Iqbal Vehniwal for Petitioner. ORDER Petitioner claiming himself to be a purchaser of a House No.B VII/250 situate in Gali Ghaurian, Mohallah Qanungoiyan, Gujrat City, vide registered sale-deed dated 26-2-1992 filed ejectment petition against respondents No.2 and 3 alleging therein that they are in possession of the property in dispute as tenants. It was contested on the basis of title and the learned Rent Controller held that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties hence 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 appeal before…