ZINDA MAHMOOD BAJWA vs DR. FARHAT HASAN AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against a tenant of a bungalow in Lahore Cantonment. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's eviction due to default in complying with an order under Section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, which required the deposit of rent arrears. The petitioner contested the arrears, claiming prior payment and producing receipts, the genuineness of which the landlord denied. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's evidence, including the testimony of a handwriting expert. The Lahore High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the lower tribunals. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed this decision, holding that the assessment of evidence regarding the genuineness of rent receipts constitutes a question of fact. The Court reiterated that constitutional jurisdiction does not extend to re-evaluating factual findings made by lower tribunals, even if those findings might be considered erroneous. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the tenant was granted three months to vacate voluntarily.
- Is the assessment of evidence regarding the genuineness of rent receipts a question of fact or law?
- Can a High Court interfere with the factual findings of lower tribunals in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does an erroneous factual finding by a lower tribunal warrant interference by the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Section 17(8), Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESHI J,--The petitioner, a tenant in a portion of Bungalow No. 64, Abid Majid Road, Lahore Cantonment, was ordered to be ejected by the Rent Controller on 21-5-1980. His appeal before the Additional District Judge, Lahore and Writ Petition No. 880 of 1981, before the Lahore High Court, having failed on 25-1-1981 and 29-3-1981 respectively, he is now seeking leave to appeal.
2. The ejectment of the petitioner had been directed upon the finding that he had defaulted in compliance of an order passed under section 17 (8) the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. By that order the petitioner read been asked to deposit arrears of rent from 1-5-1976 to 30-5-1978 with the stipulation that if he had already paid any rent for the period, he could deduct the same. The petitioner made certain deductions on account of his having already paid the rent and produced receipts in respect of such payments. The landlord denied the genuineness of receipts Exh. P. 1 to P.
3. This led to the framing of an issue and recording of evidence produced by the parties. The petitioner produced Mr. M. A. Nomani, Handwriting Expert, to prove the signatures of the landlord on those receipts but for reasons recorded. The Controller as well as the Appellate Authority disbelieved the evidence. The. Court declined to interfere observing that the tribunals had given reasons for their not believing the evidence produced by the petitioner and that even if their findings were erroneous, that would not warrant as interference b The High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
3. The question of believing or disbelieving the evidence in the circum--stances of the case is one of fact and as such we see no ground to differ from the view taken by the High Court. The petition is. There fore, dismissed. A the request of the petitioner's counsel, he is, however, allowed three months time to vacate the premises on the condition that he shall surrender possession voluntarily and continue to pay rent in the meantime.