UMAR DIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAN WALA AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an appellate order reversing an eviction decree. The petitioner sought the eviction of respondents from disputed premises based on personal need. The Rent Controller initially ordered eviction, but the Additional District Judge reversed this, finding the petitioner had previously failed in an earlier eviction attempt for the same premises. The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that the lower courts misread the evidence and that this misreading was material to the outcome. The Supreme Court examined the record and the High Court's reasoning. It held that even if the alleged misreading of evidence by the Additional District Judge were disregarded, the remaining evidence on record sufficiently established that the petitioner did not require the premises in good faith. Consequently, the Court found the petition lacked substance and dismissed it, affirming that appellate findings on factual matters, when supported by independent evidence, do not warrant interference under the Court's jurisdiction.
- Does a misreading of evidence by an appellate court warrant interference if the remaining evidence supports the conclusion?
- Can a landlord seek eviction based on personal need after failing in a previous eviction attempt for the same premises?
- Is the requirement of good faith in personal need eviction cases a question of fact that precludes Supreme Court interference?
ORDER
MIAN BURHAUDDIN KHAN, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 24-6-1981, passed in Writ Petition No. 2505 of 1981.
2. Petitioner moved an application for the eviction of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 Masood Ahmad and Khurshid Ahmad from the disputed premises on the ground of personal need. Learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 22-5-1980, ordered eviction of the respondents. This order was impugned by the respondents in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, who reversed the finding of the trial Court holding that the petitioner had filed the present ejectment petition after having failed in the first round of litigation for eviction of the respondents from the same shop. Thereafter, writ petition was preferred before the Lahore High Court against the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 9-4-1981 which resulted in the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us that there was misreading of the evidence by the learned Additional District Judge and by the learned Judge of the High Court ; that the learned High Court Judge for no reason, discarded the contention of the petitioner's counsel, that the misreading of evidence by the learned Additional District Judge was material for the decision of the case which had influenced the mind of the Court.
4. We have examined the contention raised by the learned counsel and find that the learned High Court Judge has taken into consideration this argument but found that even if the misreading of evidence by the Additional District Judge be ignored, the rest of the evidence on the record would establish that the premises was not required, in good faith, by the petitioner. This petition is without any substance and we are not inclined to interfere. The petition is dismissed.