QUTAB UD DIN vs SANA ULLAH AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a landlord against the dismissal of his ejectment application concerning a shop situated in Pakpattan Sharif. The lower courts rejected the ejectment petition primarily on the ground that the landlord had previously obtained the vacation of the same shop on the plea of personal need, subsequently rented it out, and was repeating the same tactic, thereby demonstrating a lack of good faith. The core legal question concerns whether the lower courts misread the evidence and misconstrued the grounds upon which the premises was previously vacated, specifically whether it was for personal need or reconstruction. The Supreme Court found force in the petitioner's contentions that the previous eviction was actually sought for reconstruction rather than personal need and that the High Court misread the testimony of witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the matter further. The key principle laid down is that findings of lower courts based on a misreading of the record and evidence regarding material facts, such as the grounds of a prior ejectment, warrant the granting of leave to appeal.
- Whether an ejectment petition can be dismissed on the ground of lack of good faith when prior eviction proceedings were allegedly based on personal need?
- Does a finding based on a misreading of witness testimony regarding prior ejectment proceedings warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- Can a landlord seek the ejectment of a tenant for personal need after previously renting out the premises?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The landlord's petition for ejectment of the tenant from his shop situated in Pakpattan Sharif has been rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner had got this very shop vacated earlier on the ground of personal need but, thereafter, he had given the said shop on rent to the respondents herein; and that he was again playing the same trick, namely, of getting the respondents herein ejected on the same false plea of personal need. The landlord's conduct indicated that, his pie, that the disputed premises was required by him for his personal need was not being made in good faith.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the above findings of the Courts below are based on a misconception; that, in fact, the landlord had earlier on got the shop vacated not on the ground of personal need but on the ground of its reconstruction. In this connection, he drew our attention to the ejectment application filed in the said proceedings, He has further argued that the observations of the learned Judge in the High Court that two of his witnesses, namely, Shafi, P.
3. W. 3, an Muhammad Ramzan, P. W. 4, bad also admitted that the shop in dispute had been got vacated earlier by the petitioner on the ground of persona need and that he had subsequently rented out the same to the respondent, was a misreading of the evidence of these two witnesses.
4. On the perusal of the available record we find that there is some force in these contentions. The case requires further consideration.
5. Leave to appeal. Is, accordingly, granted Security Rs. 2,500.
6. M. Z. M.
Cited by 2 cases
- Riaz Muhammad and another vs Asad Ullah Khan and 19 others 2022 P LC (C.S.) 461
- RIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus ASAD ULLAH KHAN 2022 PLC(CS) 461