MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs Kh. MUHAMMAD SADIQ
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against concurrent orders of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the High Court, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute on the ground of personal bona fide need of the landlord for reconstruction. The core legal question was whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's personal need for reconstruction warranted interference by the Supreme Court under special leave jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the case was concluded by concurrent findings of fact supported by cogent reasons and that arguments pertaining merely to the appreciation of evidence do not constitute grounds for granting special leave. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact on the question of personal need for reconstruction where the lower forums have properly appreciated the evidence and no principle of law has been violated.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's personal need for reconstruction can be challenged in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Does an argument pertaining merely to the appreciation of evidence constitute a sufficient ground for granting special leave to appeal in an ejectment matter?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioner who is a tenant was directed to be ejected from the shop in dispute-(described more fully in the petition)-by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 21-5-1976, on the ground that it was needed by the respondent/landlord for his personal use/need after reconstruction. The first appeal and second appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order were dismissed by the learned District Judge and the High Court on 18-10-1978 and 20-5-1980 respectively.
2. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length. In our opinion the case is concluded by a concurrent finding of fact by the three courts below the landlord requires this shop for his personal bona fide use/need after reconstruction. The learned counsel could not convince us that the case suffered from violation of any principle of law applicable to cases of this type, and all the arguments raised before us pertained merely to appreciation of evidence which it is well settled is no ground to grant special leave. The Courts below have given cogent reasons to show that the landlord has a genuine need to accommodate his son and himself and for that purpose to reconstruct the shop. The landlord has got necessary plan approved from the proper authority. If he does not raise the construction the la take care of it by providing for a relevant action which can be taken in that respect.
4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given two months time to vacate the property voluntarily without any hurdle and without causing any damage to it and subject to payment of rent in accordance with law and clearing the arrears in to at the time of handing over possession to the landlord.
Cited by 5 cases
- FAIZ UR REHMAN vs Haji YAZ MIR and 5 others 2013 PLJ Peshawar 127, 2013 YLR 950
- FAIZ-UR-REHMAN vs Haji YAZ MIR and 5 others 2013 PLJ Peshawar 127
- Haji ABDULLAH and 10 others vs YAHYA BAKHTIAR 2001 PLD Supreme Court 158
- ABDUL WAHID LEHRI vs ARBAB MIR NAWAZ And 3 Other 1997 SCMR 1789
- Haji ABDULLAH And Other vs YAHYA BAKHTIAR, BAR-AT-LAW, JINNAH ROAD, QUETTA K.L.R. 2001 S.C. 242