Haji PEHALWAN MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS
This is a tenant's petition for special leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge directing the eviction of the petitioner from shop premises on the ground of the landlord's personal requirement. The core legal question was whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction on the grounds of misreading of evidence and mala fides. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that in constitutional jurisdiction, it is impermissible to seek a reappraisal of evidence or reopen findings of fact conclusively determined by statutory forums unless strong legal grounds are made out. The Court established that concurrent findings of fact by rent forums regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement cannot be disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction merely on the basis of pleas not raised in pleadings or unsupported by the record.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by rent forums regarding personal requirement can be reopened in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is it permissible to seek a reappraisal of evidence before the High Court in a writ petition arising from rent proceedings?
- Can a plea of mala fides regarding a landlord's personal requirement be entertained when not specifically raised in the pleadings?
ORDER
1. ' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-This is a tenant's petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 16-6-1984 by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, where by a writ petition filed by the tenant to call in question the order of his eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, was dismissed.
2. ' The dispute relates to shop premises situated at trunk bazar, Rawalpindi. The Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal requirement of the landlord. In this behalf the finding of the Rent Controller was that respondent No, 2 who had retired from service required the shop for commencing his business along-with his nephew who is the son of respondent No, 3 and who was jobless. Respondent No, 3's son had also appeared in support of the ejectment application and supported the claim of respondent No,
2. On the evidence produced before the Rent Controller it was found that the landlords had no other shop of their own which they could utilize for the purpose.
3. ' The defence of the petitioner was that the claim for personal requirement was mala fide and that in fact the landlords were seeking to obtain possession of the shop in order to dispose it of by sale.
4. The Rent Controller did not believe this defence and, as already stated, accepted the application for ejectment.
5. ' After the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment, on the ground that in the constitutional jurisdiction it was not permissible for the petitioner to seek a reappraisal of the evidence led before the Rent Controller and reopen findings of fact which were determined conclusively by the statutory forum. Additionally, the learned Judge in the High Court, upon his own examination of toe evidence on record, found that, the finding of fact that "at least a grown up son of one of the landlady. Needed the shop for himself was not adequately disproved."
6. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition contended that the concurrent findings of the statutory forums were liable to be upset in the constitutional jurisdiction for the reason that the findings were the result of gross misreading of the evidence on record. In order to show this he submitted that the landlords owned another shop at Rawalpindi which fact they had suppressed but there is nothing on the record to indicate that the alleged shop was in the possession of the landlords and in any case no such question was put to respondent No, 2 when he appeared as a witness nor was this plea specifically taken in the pleadings of the petitioner. It was next submitted that the evidence of the petitioner to the effect that the landlord had expressed willingness to sell the shop in presence of the witness of the petitioner who was a property dealer, was ignored.
7. However, on the face of this evidence it does not establish that the landlord had himself sought a purchaser for the property. On the contrary it was the petitioner who had taken the property dealer to the landlord for purchasing the shop but did not succeed and the witnesses categorically stated that the landlord had not approached him for the disposal of the shop although he used to meet him. Learned counsel then urged that the respondent No, 2 is an old man of 72 years and incapable of managing the business while living away from Rawalpindi. All these are questions of fact and the High Court rightly declined to undertake a reappraisal of such questions in the constitutional jurisdiction.
8. ' For the foregoing reasons no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment and the petition is accordingly dismissed.