ABDUL WAHEED KHAN vs Mst.AZRA KHANUM and other
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondents/landlords against the petitioner/tenant. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's eviction, a decision subsequently upheld by both the Additional District Judge in appeal and the High Court in second appeal. The petitioner challenged these orders before the Supreme Court, primarily contending that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that all lower courts had reached a concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner, which was supported by cogent reasons and evidence. The Court held that since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any omission or misreading of evidence by the lower courts, there was no justification to reopen the matter, as it was concluded by a finding of fact. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the Court granted the petitioner two months to vacate the premises, conditional upon the payment of rent and voluntary surrender of the property.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in rent eviction proceedings?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to point out any omission or misreading of evidence by the courts below?
ORDER
' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-- On application of the respondents/landlords, the learned Rent Controller directed the eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the property in dispute. The petitioner filed an appeal and then a second appeal which were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 17-3-1980 and the High Court on 20-5-1980 respectively. The petitioner has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
2. The main plea of the defendant/petitioner was that he was not the tenant under the respondents but there is a concurrent finding of all the courts below against the petitioner which is well supported by cogent reasons and attending evidence on the subject. The matter is thus concluded by a finding of fact and there is no justification to reopen the same especially when the learned counsel has not been able to point out any omission or misreading of evidence.
3. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed However, the petitioner, is given two months' time to vacate the property subject to payment of rent and voluntary surrender.
Cited by 3 cases
- FAIZ UR REHMAN vs Haji YAZ MIR and 5 others 2013 PLJ Peshawar 127, 2013 YLR 950
- FAIZ-UR-REHMAN vs Haji YAZ MIR and 5 others 2013 PLJ Peshawar 127
- Haji ABDULLAH and 10 others vs YAHYA BAKHTIAR 2001 PLD Supreme Court 158