SAMIULLAH Versus HAMEED KAUSAR
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the ejectment order passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The core legal questions involved the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the eviction application suffered from a legal defect for failing to implead other heirs of the petitioner's deceased father. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings regarding the existence of tenancy, based on the appreciation of evidence, warranted no interference, and that the non-joinder of other heirs did not vitiate the proceedings in the absence of evidence showing their occupation or interest in the property. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court, and that non-impleadment of non-occupying heirs is not a fatal defect in ejectment proceedings.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does an eviction application suffer from a fatal legal defect if other heirs of a deceased tenant, who are not in occupation of the property, are not impleaded?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.- -This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 3-10-87 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner from an order of ejectment from a house made against him by the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt.
2. The house in question is situated in Bazaz Muhallah of Saddar Bazar, Lahore Cantt. It was formerly an evacuee property and was transferred to the mother of the respondents, Mst. Maryam Bibi, who is now dead. It was in the occupation of the father of the petitioner who is also dead. On 22-5-83, the respondents filed an application before the Additional Rent Controller for the eviction of the petitioner from the house on a number of grounds including those of default in the payment of rent and personal need. The petitioner resisted the application denying that he was occupying the house as a tenant under the respondents. He alleged that his father had entered into an agreement with the respondents for the purchase of the house and that in accordance with the agreement, had paid Rs.2,000 towards the price of the house: He further averred that he had been paying Rs.150 per month to the respondents on account of the installments of the sale price and compensation for the use of the house.
3. On the pleading of the parties the learned Additional Rent Controller framed an issue to the effect whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The petitioner as well as the respondents led evidence and after considering the same the learned Additional Rent Controller held that the said relationship did obtain between the parties; consequently, he directed the ejectment of the petitioner.
4. From the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court After considering the evidence afresh, a learned Single Judge affirmed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
5. The question whether the petitioner was occupying the house as a tenant under the respondents was one of facts in this case as the answer to it depended entirely upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. In support of his case the petitioner relied entirely upon oral evidence which was rejected by the High Court as well as the learned Additional Rent Controller. On the other hand, the respondents produced a letter (Ex.P.4) which the petitioner had sent on 10-5-83 in response to the notice given to him by the respondents. It is to be noticed that in this letter the petitioner had made no mention whatsoever of the alleged agreement to sell. However, that may be, we can find no basis for interfering with a concurrent finding on a question of fact recorded by the High Court and the Additional Rent Controller.
6. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the application for eviction suffered from a serious legal defect inasmuch as the respondents did not implead the other heirs of his father therein. This contention is without any substance, for, there is no evidence on the record which may show that apart from the petitioner any of the other heirs of his father was in occupation of the house in question or had shown any interest in the present proceedings.
7. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.
M.I. /S-90/S Petition dismissed.