Sheikh ATAULLAH vs MUHAMMAD NASEEM YAR KHAN
This matter concerns a landlord's petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed an order for the ejectment of a tenant from a shop in Sialkot. The Additional District Judge had initially accepted the landlord's plea of personal requirement for the shop. However, the High Court overturned this decision, reasoning that the landlord's admission of having conducted his business for several years prior to renting out the shop undermined his claim of personal need. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court's conclusion was based on a misreading of the evidence, as the record suggested the factual position was the reverse of what the High Court had assumed. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the case required further examination due to the apparent misreading of evidence. Leave to appeal was granted to determine the validity of the High Court's findings regarding the landlord's personal requirement.
- Does a misreading of evidence by the High Court regarding a landlord's personal requirement constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal?
- Can a landlord's claim for personal requirement be defeated solely by the fact that he was already conducting business when the premises were rented out?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The appellate authority (Additional District judge) had accepted the plea of the petitioner herein that he required his shop (situate in Sialkot) and rented out to the respondent for his personal use and ordered his ejectment. On second appeal, the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court reversed this finding mainly on the assump--petition that the learned counsel for the petitioner herein on a query made by the learned Judge had stated that the petitioner herein "had been carrying on his business of import of stainless steel sheets for the last 7/8 years and he had given the shop in dispute on rent to the appellant (respondent herein) for the last 4/5 years'". On account of this reply the learned Judge thought that as the petitioner had already been carrying on his business when he gave the shop in dispute on rent to the respondent herein his assertion that he really needed the shop for his personal use could not be accepted.
2. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant evidence and the post--petition emerging there from appears to be the reverse of what the learned Single Judge has thought it to be. As the evidence, prima facie, appear to have been misread the case requires further examination.
3. Leave is granted.
4. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,500.
5. The appeal to be put up for hearing as soon as it is complete.