Sh. HABIB AHMAD ETC. vs AHMAD SAEED
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from concurrent decisions of the lower forums rejecting the petitioners' ejectment application filed under Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance against the respondent tenant. The petitioners alleged that the respondent constructed walls and a roof of corrugated sheets, impairing the usefulness and value of the rented shop. The Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the Lahore High Court concurrently found that the construction was made on a portion of the street rather than the rented property itself, and that no damage or impairment to the utility of the property was proved. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact by the three lower courts regarding the absence of damage or impairment to the property value are pure questions of fact which the Court does not interfere with. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
- Whether the Supreme Court interferes with concurrent findings of fact regarding impairment of property value in rent matters?
- Can a landlord seek ejectment of a tenant for construction allegedly impairing the property when lower courts concurrently find the construction was on a public street?
- Does construction on a street rather than the rented premises constitute a ground for ejectment under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Section 13, Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-A shop in building No. S-64-R-10 Anarkali, Lahore is in occupation of Ahmed Saeed respondent, as a tenant. He is said to have constructed two walls and a roof of corrugated sheets in it closing the rear door of the shop and the passage to the rear doors of other shops. The petitioner consequently moved an application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for his ejectment for having made construc--tion, which impaired the usefulness of the property rented out to him. This application was rejected on 14-3-1966. An appeal filed against it was rejected by the Additional District Judge on 17-11-1966 and S. A. O. No. 38 of 1967 met the same fate in the Lahore High Court on 26-2-1975. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the construction, had, in fact, impaired the value of the property and that damage had bee caused to it. There is a concurrent finding of fact of the three Courts below that this contention is not sustainable by the facts brought on the record, In fact the High Court has come to the conclusion that the construction has been made on a portion of the street and not the property itself and that there is no proof that any damage has been caused to the property or to its utility.
3. These are pure questions of fact and this Court does not go into them particularly when the three Courts below have agreed. The petition is, there--fore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.