ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus MASHA ALLAH JAN
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his First Rent Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the Rent Controller's order for his ejectment from a commercial shop on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the default in rent could be interfered with by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the issue stood concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums, which revealed a clear default for three months, and that such findings did not give rise to any question of law. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact in rent matters are not interfered with absent a question of law.
- Do concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default give rise to a question of law?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court in a rent matter?
ORDER
1. S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑ The respondent /landlady applied for the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed shop premises on the ground of default in payment of rent for 11 months. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller on an affirmative finding of default.
2. The petitioner s First Rent Appeal challenging the said order of ejectment was dismissed by the learned High Court as per impugned judgment.
3. 2 It was contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner had been tendering rent from time to time which proved his bona fides and in any case the default was not such as could not have been condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned High Court on examining the evidence in the case found that even if certain payments mere taken into consideration there was a clear default for three months in respect of December, 1977, January, 1978 and May, 1978.
3. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel and examination of the two orders passed in the case, we find that the issue involved in the case stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact. Such findings of fact do not give rise to any question of law.
4. The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly.
5. M.I. Petition dismissed.