KHADIM HUSSAIN vs Mst. GHULAM JANNA T AND Another
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged an ejectment order granted in favor of the respondent, who required the shop for her son's personal use. After the Rent Controller and the appellate court ruled against the petitioner, the High Court dismissed his writ petition in limine, citing concurrent findings of fact. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court's summary dismissal order was legally insufficient and failed to constitute a proper judgment, relying on precedent regarding the disposal of writ petitions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. It held that while a court must demonstrate it has applied its mind, there is no requirement for a writ dismissal order to follow a specific, elaborate format, provided the reasoning is decipherable. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents involving quasi-judicial authorities, noting that here, the impugned order originated from a judicial authority, and the High Court had clearly identified that the concurrent findings of fact did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
- Is a High Court required to write a detailed judgment when dismissing a writ petition in limine?
- Does a summary dismissal order in a writ petition satisfy legal requirements if the reasoning is decipherable?
- Can a High Court refuse to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a rent matter under writ jurisdiction?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner is a tenant of a shop under Respondent No. 1. In pursuance of an ejectment petition filed by Respondent No. 1 on the ground, inter alia, that he needed the shop for personal use of her son, the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner vide his order dated 12-10-1982. He filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which failed. He then moved a writ petition in the High Court. This was dismissed in limine by an order passed in the following terms :- "There is a concurrent finding that the shop was bona fide required by the Respondent No. (1) for the use of her son. I can find no justifica--petition for interfering with this finding."
2. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition was disposed of, by a very short and summary Order which could not be termed as judgment as contemplated under Order XXI, rule 5 read with Order XLI, rule I I (these provisions, however, appear to be wholly irrelevant) and. Therefore, the case deserves to be remanded for disposal in accordance with law.
4. He relied on Mollah Ejahar A.I v. Government of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1970 SC 173) to contend that this Court had disproved the disposal ofwrit petitions by such summary orders.
5. We find no force in this petition. The precedent judgment of the Court dealt with the disposal of a writ petition which was filed against an order of a quasi-judicial authority and in which an important legal question was involved but was dismissed simply with the observation "application, rejected as there is no substance in it". The situation here is altogether different. The order impugned before the High Court in this case was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, a judicial authority and not a quasi-judicial authority. No legal question was involved and the matter involved was only a question of fact. Moreover, in this case, the learned Judge in the High Court has clearly indicated the ground on which he refused the writ, namely, that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below did not require any interference. We may also observe that while disposing of a writ petition it is not necessary to record a judgment in any special form all that is necessary is that it should be apparent there from that the Court has applied its mind and the ground of his decision is decipherable from the terms of his order.
6. This petition is dismissed.