MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the eviction of the petitioner from a shop in Lahore ordered by three lower courts on the grounds of non-payment of rent and the respondent landlord's personal bona fide requirement for business. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner's refusal to attorn to the respondent after a partition among co-owners constituted wilful default and whether the plea of collusion regarding the partition was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner committed wilful default by failing to pay rent to the respondent despite being directed to do so by the co-owners, that the concurrent findings of fact regarding partition and default cannot be disturbed, and that the respondent's personal requirement for the shop is established. The Court laid down that a tenant who persists in denying the landlord's title after partition among co-owners is liable to eviction for wilful default, and that concurrent factual findings on partition and personal need supported by evidence will be maintained.
- Does a tenant's refusal to pay rent to the transferee or partition-holder after a partition among co-owners amount to wilful default?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the partition of property and tenant default be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a tenant liable to eviction on the ground of personal bona fide requirement when the landlord proves he has no other suitable shop?
ORDER
1. DORAB PATBL, J.-The dispute in this, petition for leave relates to a shop in Anarkali in Lahore and the three Courts below have ordered the petitioner's eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and on the ground that the respondent who is the owner of the shop requires it in good faith for his own business.
2. In order to get over the concurrent findings of the three Courts that the petitioner was in habitual default in the payment of rent, learned counsel stated that the house in which the shop in dispute is situated had originally been owned by the brother-in-law of the petitioner, who had transferred it to the respondent and four other persons including one Abdul Karim. Now, whilst the building was the joint property of the respondent and the others they had sought the petitioner' eviction but that application had been dismissed. Thereafter they had partitioned the building and the shop in dispute passed to the char of the respondent, who had called upon the petitioner to pay the rent to him. Instead the petitioner offered rent to one Abdul Karim one f the former co-owners. But, Abdul Karim also directed the peti--tioner to attorn to the respondent. As the petitioner persisted in not acknowledging the respondent's title, the Courts below have rightly held hat the petitioner's failure to pay rent amounted to wilful default in e payment of rent.
3. Learned counsel's only plea was that the partition between the respondents and Abdul Karim and others was collusive but the question hither it was collusive is a question of fact on which the Courts have been unanimous in rejecting the petitioner's plea which we may add does not impress us as it did not impress the Courts below.
4. Additionally, the respondent has proved that he does not have any other shop and that he wants to run his own business in the shop leased to the petitioner. Therefore, on the law declared by this Court on this B ground alone the petitioner is liable to be evicted and for the reasons given in the judgment under appeal, the petitioner's reliance on the principle of resjudicata is totally misconceived.
5. The petition is without merit and is dismissed.