MUNIR AHMAD vs AHMAD DIN AND Another
This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the landlords under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 seeking the eviction of the tenant from a shop in Faisalabad on the ground of personal need, as one of the landlords intended to start a cloth merchant business jointly with his brother through his son. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, and both the appellate court and the Lahore High Court dismissed the tenant's subsequent appeals. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the failure of the landlord's son to appear as a witness vitiated the concurrent findings of fact regarding good faith and personal need. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings were unexceptionable as the landlord himself deposed and established the personal need, and the appreciation of evidence by the lower forums suffered from no legal or procedural error. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the non-production of a landlord's son as a witness is fatal to an ejectment application based on personal need where the landlord himself has deposed to establish the same?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums in the absence of any legal or procedural error?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J..-(1) Ahmad Din and (2) Allah Ditta (here--inafter called the landlords) filed on application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) for eviction of Munir Ahmad (hereinafter called the tenant) frog the shop bearing No. P-51, situated in Mandar Gali No. 3, Ward No. I Faisalabad, on the ground of personal need because Ahmad Din landlord wanted to do cloth merchant business jointly with his brother Alla Ditta, through his son Manzoor Hussain. The learned Rent Controller accused this petition by means of his order dated 17-11-1977 and directed the eviction o the tenant/petitioner.
2. The tenant/petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 24-4-1978.
3. The tenant/petitioner filed a Second Appeal beasing No. S. A. O. 270 of 1978 which also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 28-6-1978.
The tenant/petitioner has come up in a petition for special appeal leave to appeal against the, same to this. Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has argued that the findings of the Courts below that the respondents required the shop in dispute in good faith for their personal use, vie. For use of Ahmad Din for doing business through his son Manzoor Hussain was not correct because the aforesaid Manzoor Hussain was not produced as a witness in the case. The contention has no merit. It has come on record that Ahmad Din (landlord) had retire from service due to invalidity because of failure of his vision, and that on `t of his sons Manzoor Hussain was jobless and that Ahmad Din wanted to earn his livelihood by putting his son into the cloth merchant business.
Ahmad Din duly appeared in the witness-box and deposed about the aforesaid fact and circumstances. All the Courts below accepted the statement of Ahmad Din especially when there was nothing to shake his credit. The case depends on the appreciation of the evidence and the learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal or procedural error in the concurrent findings of all the Courts below.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.