Mst. NAWAB BIBI ETC. vs SAIFUR REHMAN ETC.S
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the respondents, who contested the proceedings alleging occupation in their own right rather than as sub-tenants of the original statutory tenant, Muhammad Din. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge ruled in favour of the petitioners ordering ejectment, but the Lahore High Court accepted a second appeal and set aside the ejectment based on findings regarding lack of proved service of notice on the primary tenant and the nature of the other respondents' occupancy. The core legal question concerned whether interference was warranted in concurrent or factual findings regarding service of notice and tenancy status. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that questions pertaining to the realm of fact, such as the service of notice and the existence of sub-tenancy, do not warrant interference by the apex court. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly refused and dismissed.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere in findings of fact relating to the service of notice on a statutory tenant?
- Can a person claiming occupation in their own right be proceeded against as a sub-tenant without proof of subletting?
- Does a finding regarding the sufficiency of service of notice on a tenant raise a question of law warranting leave to appeal?
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioners are successors-in-interest of Hashmat Ali deceased, the transferee of the property in dispute. One Muhammad Din was its occupant since 1948.
2. The petition for ejectment was filed against Muhammad Din and the other respondents on the grounds that Muhammad Din had defaulted in payment of rent and bad inducted the other respondents into the house as sub-tenants. Muhammad Din did not contest the application. The other respondents did. The other respondents claim to be in occupation of the house in their own rights.
3. The Rent Controller passed an ejectment order against the said respondents on 1-4-74. The respondents filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The respondents then filed a second appeal which was accepted by the Lahore (sigh Court on 31-1-75.
Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
4. The judgment of the learned High Court is based on the finding that, the service of notice on Muhammad Din, the statutory tenant, not having been proved before the Rent Controller, the case could not have been proceeded with at all. Secondly the other respondents having claimed that the house was never sublet to them by Muhammad Din, a proposition which, having found favour with the learned Rent Controller, they could no have been proceeded against as sub-tenants.
5. Both these questions pertain .To the realm of fact and it is not for this Court to interfere in it. Leave is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.