ABDUL RAZZAQ vs NOOR AHMAD AND ANOTHER
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which upheld the eviction of the petitioner from a shop located in Faisalabad. The respondents, as landlords, had initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, citing default in rent payment and personal requirement of the premises. The Rent Controller ordered eviction based on personal need, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Additional District Judge on appeal and the High Court in a second appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlords' personal need for the property were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any omission, misreading of evidence, or violation of applicable legal principles by the lower courts. The Court affirmed that where concurrent findings of fact are established and no legal error is shown, the matter is not fit for the grant of special leave to appeal.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement in rent cases where no misreading of evidence is shown?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to point out any legal error or misreading of evidence by the lower courts?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--The dispute in this case is regarding a shop bearing No. P/168, situated in Arshad Market, Jhang Bazar, Faisalabad, The petitioner was occupying this shop as a tenant under the respondents who filed an application for his eviction under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, on the ground of default in the payment of rent and personal need/requirement. The applica--tion was accepted by the learned Rent Controller who by order dated 19-7-1978, accepted the pleas of the landlords and directed eviction of the petitioner/tenant.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 9-7-1979, on the ground that the personal need/requirement of the landlord stood fully established on the record.
3. The petitioner filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 525/79, and the landlords also filed a counter appeal being S. A. O. 551/79, to reagitate the plea of default. Both these appeals were dismissed by the High Court on 19-12-1979, with the result that the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of the personal need/requirement of the landlords remained operative in the field.
4. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
5. Learned counsel argued that the views of the Courts below on the subject of the personal need/requirement of the landlords was not correct. We have heard the learned counsel at length, but we must say that he has not been able to point out any omission or misreading of evidence, nor violation of any principle of law applicable to cases of this type. His argu--ments pertained merely to appreciation of evidence, where again he could not refer to any factual or legal mistake.
The case being concluded by concurrent findings of fact is not fit for grant of special leave.
6. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER vs MAQBOOL AHMED 1982 CLC 1889