BAKAR Versus KHATOON HAJIN KALA ALIAS KALA BEGUM
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the High Court of Sindh, which affirmed an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the petitioner. The respondent, as the widow of the deceased owner, sought the eviction of the petitioner from two shops on the grounds of personal need, asserting that she did not own or possess any other commercial property. Both the Rent Controller and the High Court concurrently found that the respondent was indeed a widow and that she did not own any other shops, thereby justifying the eviction order. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondent's status and her personal requirement for the premises were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error of law or misappraisal of evidence. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, which suffer from no legal infirmity, are not subject to interference in leave to appeal proceedings.
- Can concurrent findings of fact by a Rent Controller and the High Court be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal without demonstrating an error of law?
- Is a widow entitled to seek the ejectment of a tenant from commercial premises based on personal need if she owns no other similar property?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J .‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of ejectment passed by the IVth Rent Controller (West), Karachi, whereby he directed him to handover vacant possession of two shops in his occupation to the respondent herein. The respondent was the owner and landlord of the two shops aforementioned. She had applied to the Rent Controller for possession of the said shops by ejecting the tenant after the death of her husband, as his widow, alleging that she did not own or possess any other shop.
2. Both the Rent Controller and the High Court on appeal have found that the respondent had indeed become a widow before filing of the ejectment application and that she did not own or possess any shops other than the two shops aforesaid, which were given on rent to the petitioner. Accordingly the ejectment application was accepted and the tenant (petitioner herein) was ordered to be ejected. By this petition, the above‑mentioned determinations of the Courts below are questioned before us.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has not been able to show any error of law or point out any mistake in the appraisal of the evidence on record, necessitating further scrutiny in the matter. The matter stands concluded by findings of fact, which suffer from no infirmity.
4. M. I./B‑36/S Petition dismissed.