HAROON Versus UMAR AHMED
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which dismissed the petitioner's First Rent Appeal against an ejectment order. The respondent landlord had originally sought the ejectment of the petitioner from a shop premises, citing personal and bona fide requirement for his own occupation, as well as for his children and grandchildren, alongside allegations of tenancy infringement. The Rent Controller initially allowed the ejectment application, finding the landlord's requirement to be bona fide. Upon appeal, the High Court affirmed this decision, concluding that the findings were supported by the evidence on record. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged these findings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. Emphasizing that there were concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement, the Court determined that these findings did not raise any substantial question of law and were therefore unexceptionable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
- Do concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises constitute a question of law suitable for Supreme Court review?
- Can a landlord obtain an ejectment order based on the personal and bona fide requirement of the premises for himself and his descendants?
ORDER
1. S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑ This petition has been brought seeking leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sind dated 22‑5‑1983 whereby the First Rent Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The respondent Haji Umar Ahmed, since deceased, landlord of the disput ed shop premises filed an application for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he required the premises in good faith for his own occupation and for his children and grandchildren and infringement of the terms of tenancy. The application was duly contested by the petitioners and was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged in First Rent Appeal by the petitioner which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
3. We have gone through the judgment of the learned High Court which is based on appreciation of evidence available on the record which was duly examined. There are concurrent findings of facts on the question of bona fide requirement and such findings do not give rise to any question of law and are unexceptionable. The petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly .
4. M Z M petition dismissed.