ABDUR RAHIM vs ABDUL KHALIQ QURESHI AND OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an ejectment order. The Rent Controller, whose decision was upheld by the Additional District Judge, had ordered the petitioner's eviction from the premises on the ground of the respondent-landlord's personal need. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's judgment suffered from any legal error or error of principle warranting interference. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court found no such error in the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. However, acknowledging that the petitioner was conducting business on the premises, the Court granted the petitioner two months to vacate and deliver peaceful possession to the respondent, based on an undertaking provided by the petitioner in open court to avoid execution proceedings. The principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding ejectment for personal need absent a legal error.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent matters absent a legal error?
- Can the Supreme Court grant a grace period for vacating premises upon an undertaking by the tenant?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 10-10-190 challenging the dismissal of petitioner's Writ Petition (W. P. No, 3350 of 1983) directed against the order of the Rent Controller and upheld by the Additional District Judge, allowing the respondent-landlord's petition for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal need.
2. After hearing Mr. Shahid Hussain Qadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh for respondent No, 1, we are stained that the judgment of the High Court does not require any interference as it' does not suffer from any legal error or any error of principle.
3. ' However, as the petitioner has been running some business in a part of the premises, we will allow him two months' time to deliver vacant possession of the premises in his possession to the respondent. The petitioner is present in the Court and has given an undertaking before us that he will deliver possession of the premises to the respondent peacefully and without forcing him to have recourse to execution proceedings.
4. ' This petition, subject to the above directions, stands dismissed.