MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against a tenant on the grounds of the landlord's bona fide personal use. The ejectment order was upheld by both the District Judge and the Lahore High Court. The petitioner contended that the Rent Controller erred by deciding the case without first disposing of an application to adduce additional evidence. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the appellate courts had found this application was maneuvered onto the trial court's file after the appeal had already been admitted, and that the petitioner had failed to raise this ground in the memorandum of the first appeal or seek further inquiry under the relevant statutory provisions. The Court held that since the matter involved concurrent findings of fact concluded against the petitioner by three lower courts, there was no scope for interference. The petition was dismissed, affirming that procedural irregularities alleged for the first time at the appellate stage, which appear to be fabricated, do not warrant Supreme Court intervention.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding ejectment orders?
- Is an application for additional evidence valid if it is maneuvered onto the trial court file after an appeal has been admitted?
- Does the failure to raise a procedural ground in the memorandum of first appeal preclude its consideration in subsequent appeals?
- Section 15(3), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.--The petitioner is a tenant against whom an order of ejectment was passed on the ground of bona fide personal use of the landlord. The decision has been upheld in the first appeal before the District Judge, Gujrat, and in second appeal before the Lahore High Court. Since the question is one of fact and has been concurrently concluded against the petitioner by all the three Courts below, there is hardly any scope for interference by this Court.
2. However, it is urged that the Rent Controller had erred in deciding the matter without first disposing of an application filed by the petitioner before him for adducing additional evidence. The contention which had for the first time been taken before the learned District Judge has been dealt with by both the appellate Courts below and rejected. The learned judge of the High Court after scrutiny of the record noticed that the application and the accompanying affidavit, had been placed "at fag end of the file and had not been numbered", that no such ground had been taken in the memorandum of the first appeal nor had any application been made for further inquiry under section 15(3) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The learned Judge, therefore, agreed with the first appellate Court that the application had been "manoeuvred to be brought on the file of the trial Court" after the appeal had been admitted for regular hearing.
3. We thus find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed: M. Z. M.