UMAR DIN vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge regarding the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant. The landlord sought eviction based on two grounds: default in rent payment for November and December 1973, and material damage to the demised property, specifically the removal of doors and tampering with walls, which allegedly impaired the property's utility. The core legal question was whether the alleged structural alterations constituted sufficient grounds for eviction under the relevant rent laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the three lower courts regarding the removal of doors and damage to walls were conclusive. The Court affirmed that such actions constituted material impairment of the property's utility, thereby justifying the eviction order. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts regarding the material impairment of rented premises, provided such findings are supported by the evidence on record.
- Does the removal of doors and tampering with walls in a rented shop constitute material impairment of the property's utility?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in rent ejectment cases?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction if they damage the demised property to an extent that impairs its utility?
ORDER
1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The petitioner is aggrieved by an order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 25th of May 1977, by which the second appeal filed by him against an order of ejectment made by the Rent Controller, was dismissed.
2. ' The respondent landlord had moved for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent for the months of November and December, 1973, and also on the ground of damaging the property and thus impairing its utility. Both the grounds were accepted by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned Additional District Judge in first appeal, and by the High Court in second appeal, although the learned Judge in the High Court has observed that he might have taken a lenient view on the question of default for the reason that the tenant had deposited Rs, LOCO as security with the landlord.
3. ' Leave to appeal is sought on the ,ground that the damage alleged by the landlord, namely, the removal of doors and tampering with the walls of the shop, was not such as to materially impair the utility of the property, and, therefore, it did not constitute a ground for the petitioner's eviction.
4. There is no merit in these submissions, as all the three Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner had removed the two doors between the two rooms constituting the demised property, and had also damaged its walls. There is no room for our interference with this finding of fact, which shows material impairment.
5. ' As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
6. ' The petitioner is, however, given two months time to vacate the premises.