PHOOL DIN AND Another vs ABDUL MAJID
This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by the respondent landlord against the petitioners-tenants concerning a shop situated in Bahawalnagar, on the ground of personal bona fide use. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the District Judge accepted the landlord's appeal and ordered eviction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the tenants' second appeal. In the petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that subsequent to the lower court proceedings, the landlord had inherited other shops upon his father's death, which should negate his personal need. The Supreme Court held that the plea of subsequent events could not be raised for the first time before this Court, especially since the father had passed away years earlier while the matter was pending in the High Court and the petitioners had enjoyed the benefit of a stay order. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings regarding the bona fide personal need of the landlord and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot raise a new plea of subsequent developments for the first time in the apex court when such facts were available during the pendency of proceedings before the lower forums.
- Can a party raise a plea of subsequent events for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Does the inheritance of other properties by a landlord during the pendency of litigation automatically negate a finding of bona fide personal need?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J..--The dispute in this case is about a shop bearing No. 57/1 situated in Haroon Bazar, Bahawalnagar. Abdul Majid, hereinafter called the landlord, filed an application against the present petitioners for their eviction on the ground that he needed the shop for his personal use. The application was rejected by the learned Rent Controller on 29-7-1970.
2. The landlord filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge on 13-11-1970 and he set aside the order of the learned Rent controller andordered eviction of the tenants/petitioner.
3. The tenants/petitioners filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 475/ 70/BWP, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Circuit) on 9-4-1979.
The petitioners-tenants have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that 4/5 years ago Abdul Aziz father of the landlord Abdul Majid died as a result whereof some shop or shops of the deceased devolved b way of inheritance on Abdul Majid landlord. Requesting us to take notice of the subsequent development, it was argued that the fact that now the landlord was owner of some other shops as well, would react on the finding of the bona fide personal need of the landlord and for this reason he submitted that the orders of the Courts below should be set aside. The contention has no merit. According to the very submission, the father of the landlord died 4/5 years ago, but, strangely enough, no such plea was raised before the High Court where the matter remained pending from year 1970 upto 9-4-1979 during which period the petitioners enjoyed the fruits of a stay order which had been obtained by them. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case nor even a fit stage for allowing the petitioners to raise the plea aforesaid. As on the findings recorded by the learned District Judge and the High Court, the bona fide personal need of the landlord stands' duly established on the record, there exists no ground for grant of any special leave to the petitioners.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs KAMRAN KHAN 2011 CLC 939
- NASIM AHMAD KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE 2006 PLD 774