MUHAMMAD ARSHAD And OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL AND Other
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of the tenants' appeal by the High Court regarding the ejectment proceedings involving an engine-repair shop. The core legal question was whether the shop in question constituted an industry and thus fell outside the purview of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two lower forums—determining that the premises was merely an engine-repair shop and not an industry—were unexceptionable and could not be reopened. Consequently, the Court declined to examine whether an industry housed in a building would be exempt from the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower forums regarding the nature of a rented property can be reopened before the Supreme Court?
- Does an engine-repair shop fall outside the purview of the Rent Restriction Ordinance as an industry?
ORDER
1. MUHAHIMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Although the learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing tenants' appeal in the short order dated 29th January. 1983, remarked that reasons would be recorded separately, one reason was specifically mentioned, namely, that it is not established that the shop in question was an industry and was outside the purview of the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
2. Learned counsel has argued that the impugned order is not detailed enough to show that finding of fact recorded by the two forums below (that it was merely an engine-repair shop), was upheld.
3. We with the help of the learned counsel, having scrutinized the relevant material ourselves, do not consider it a fit case for re-opening the finding of fact, which is unexceptionable. Therefore, the questions that the building in dispute is not a shop and it is so-called industry do not arise any more. That being so, it is not necessary to examine the question whether an industry (if it is in a building) would not be subject to the jurisdiction of a learned (tent Controller, as argued by the learned counsel in this case.
4. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 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.