Sh. MUSHTAQ ALAM vs Mst. NAWAB BEGUM ETC.S
This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by Mst. Nawab Begum against tenant Sh. Mushtaq Alam under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, alleging default in rent payment and subletting. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of default, which decision was affirmed on appeal by the District Judge who also found against the tenant on the issue of subletting. The Lahore High Court dismissed the tenant's second appeal. The tenant then petitioned the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent payment by the lower forums cannot be reopened or interfered with by the Supreme Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, with granted time for the petitioner to voluntarily surrender possession.
- Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent payment in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does a failure to challenge an excise assessment preclude a tenant from raising questions regarding the assessment in rent proceedings?
- Can a tenant be evicted for default in paying rent assessed by the Excise Department?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. SHAH NAWAZ KHAN, J.--Rent Controller, Campbellpur, accepted the petition of Mst. Nawab Begum and ordered the eviction of Sh. Mushtaq Alam, Commission Agent, from Shop No. V/65, situated in Civil Bazar, Campbellpur. The petition had been moved before the Rent Controller by Mst. Nawab Begum under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of 1959.
2. The allegations against Sh. Mushtaq Alam were that he had failed to pay the rent as assessed by the Excise Department to her. The learned Rent Controller in his order dated 19-9-1975 while disposing of the petition observed that the rate of rent came in the latest assessment which was carried out from 1971-1973 is Rs. 100 per month. Copy of the demand notice was Exh. A-10 and the AD postal receipts Exh. A-11 and Exh. A-12 were on the file. The demand notice had been delivered to Sh. Mushtaq Alam on 29-3-1973, and according to that he failed to pay the rent due with effect from January, 1972, although he had been paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. The second issue of subletting was decided against the petitioner Mst. Nawab Begum. The case then went on appeal to the Court of District Judge, Campbellpur and the District Judge while confirm-- ing the decision of the Rent Controller regarding the ejectment of Sh. Mushtaq Alam also observed that he had sublet the shop in question to respondent No. 2, who in law is deemed to be the tenant of respondent No. 1 (Sh. Mushtaq Alam). Sh. Mushtaq Alam then moved the High Court in second appeal against the order dated 8-4-1976, but the learned Judge of the High Court on 31-5-1981 dismissed the appeal but allowed Sh. Mushtaq Alam the time up to 16th of December, 1981, to vacate the shop.
3. Sh. Mushtaq Alam has moved this petition under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution against the judgment dated 31-5-1981 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in S. A. O. No. 316 of 1976 and has sought permission to appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, but we feel reluctant to accede to his request. All the Courts below have come to a concurrent finding about the failure of the petitioner to pay the rent due to the landlady Mst. Nawab Begum, and on this ground of default, which is essentially a question of fact, this Court cannot reopen the case and interfere with the concurrent finding of the Rent Controller, the District Judge and the High Court. About the question of subletting the High Court has agreed with the District Judge. The point raised and argued before the High Court could not be again raised and argued before us to annul the finding that the assessm ent was made against the present petitioner ex paste. In fact he led no evidence-to prove that fact. He had a right to challenge, but he did not challenge the assessment.
5. We see no reason to interfere. This petition is, therefore, dismissed, but at the request of the petitioner, we grant him two months' time to-voluntarily surrender the shop to the landlady provided he also pays the rent due at the stipulated time.