MST. NAWAB BIBI ETC. vs SAIFUR REHMAN
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The petitioners, successors-in-interest of the property owner, sought the ejectment of the respondent, Muhammad Din, and other occupants on grounds of rent default and unauthorized subletting. While the Rent Controller initially ordered ejectment, the High Court reversed this decision, finding that service of notice upon the statutory tenant, Muhammad Din, was not proven and that the other occupants could not be treated as sub-tenants given the specific claims raised. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the High Court's findings were based entirely on factual determinations regarding the service of notice and the status of the occupants. The Supreme Court held that it does not interfere with findings of fact in such proceedings. Consequently, the petition for special leave to appeal was refused, and the petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that the Supreme Court will not re-examine factual findings made by lower courts.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact made by the High Court in rent ejectment cases?
- Can an ejectment proceeding continue if the service of notice on the statutory tenant is not proven?
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 ground that Muhammad Din had defaulted in payment of rent and had 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 respondent on 1-4-1974. The respondent filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The respondent then filed a second appeal which was accepted by the Lahore High Court on 31-1-1975.
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 pro--ceeded with at all. Secondly the other respondents having claimed that the house was never sublet to them and Muhammad Din having found favour with the learned Rent Controller, they could not have been proceeded against as sub-tenant.
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'.