NAZIR AHMAD ETC. vs RIAZUL HAQ AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by tenants against the High Court order dismissing their second appeal and maintaining the eviction order passed by the Additional District Judge on the ground of personal requirement of the landlords. The core legal question concerns the propriety of concurrent factual findings regarding personal bona fide need under rent laws. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court and the High Court were well-supported by the record and evidence, and no misreading or violation of legal principles was demonstrated to warrant interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, granting the petitioners two months to vacate subject to the continuous payment of rent. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact on the question of personal requirement in rent matters unless a clear misreading of evidence or violation of law is established.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement in rent matters?
- What constitutes sufficient ground for interfering with a finding of personal use recorded by lower courts?
- Whether a petition for special leave to appeal can be maintained against concurrent eviction orders without showing misreading of evidence?
ORDER
' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--The petitioners/tenants have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 28-6-1977, dismissing their second appeal being S.A.O. No, 281/77 and maintaining the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 24- 3-1977, by which he had accepted the appeal of the landlords against, the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 12-2-1976, and had ordered the eviction of the petitioners from the shop in dispute on the ground that the same was needed by the landlords/respondents for their personal use/requirement.
2. The only ground urged by the learned counsel was that on the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the finding of "requirement for personal use" as recorded by the two Courts below is not correct. The contention has no merit. The judgment of the High Court and the order of the learned Additional District Judge are well supported from the relevant record and the attending evidence mentioned therein. The question involved is essentially one of fact. Learned counsel was unable to point out any misreading or omission of any evidence of violation of any principle of law relevant in the context, warranting interference by this Court.
3. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
' The petitioners, however, are given two months time to in vacate the property dispute, subject to continuous payment of rent in the meantime.