Sheikh ANJUM IQBAL vs SHER AFGAN
This matter concerns a review petition filed by the petitioner, Sheikh Anjum Iqbal, challenging the Supreme Court's judgment dated 21-4-2004, which had allowed the respondent's appeal, set aside the Rent Controller's order and the High Court's judgment, and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within one year. The core legal question before the Court was whether there were valid grounds to review the previous judgment, specifically regarding the alleged misreading or non-reading of evidence concerning rent default and the respondent's personal bona fide need for the premises. Upon reviewing the record and hearing counsel, the Court held that the petitioner had indeed committed default in rent payment and that the respondent had successfully established his plea of personal bona fide need. The Court determined that the previous judgment was based on irrefutable evidence and was in consonance with the material on record. Finding no error of misreading, non-reading, or misappreciation of evidence, the Court dismissed the review petition, affirming that no interference with the earlier decision was warranted.
- Does the failure to prove misreading or non-reading of evidence constitute sufficient grounds for a review petition?
- Can a tenant be evicted if the landlord successfully establishes a plea of personal bona fide need?
- Is a review petition maintainable when the impugned judgment is found to be in consonance with the material on record?
ORDER
' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J.--- Petitioner, Sh. Amjad Iqbal, seeks review of this Court judgment, dated 21-4-2004, whereby Civil Appeal No,157 of 1998 preferred by respondent, Sher Afgan, was allowed and the order of Rent Controller dated 11-5-1989 and judgment of High Court, dated 31-3- 1996 were set aside and the petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in-question to the respondent within a year from 21-4-2004, subject to payment of monthly rent in terms of the agreement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. It has been established by irrefutable evidence that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent and that the respondent clearly established his plea of personal bona fide need. It is not a case of misreading, non-reading or misappreciation of the evidence. The impugned judgment is inconsonance with the material brought on record and no interference is warranted.
4. In consequence, the review petition is dismissed.
Review dismissed.