Haji SHARIF AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs SULEMAN
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had set aside an ejectment order previously passed by the Rent Controller and upheld in the first appeal. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court erred in its factual findings regarding the landlord's claim of bona fide personal use, the tenant's alleged default in rent payment, and the claim of damage to the rented premises. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record. Specifically, the High Court noted that the landlord failed to prove the unsuitability of other vacant shops for personal use, verified the tenant's attempts to remit rent via money order, and determined that the alleged damage to the property was unsubstantiated given the long-standing nature of the tenant's business operations. Finding no question of law arising from the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court held that the decision was based on a correct appreciation of evidence and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Does the failure of a landlord to prove the unsuitability of other vacant properties defeat a claim for bona fide personal use?
- Can a tenant avoid a finding of default in rent payment by demonstrating attempts to remit rent via money order after a landlord's refusal?
- Is a finding of fact by the High Court based on a correct appreciation of evidence open to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-An order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller against Suleman respondent at the instance of Haji Sharif Ahmad petitioner No, 1, and Munawwar Ahmad, predecessor-in-interest of the remaining petitioners and upheld in appeal, was set aside by the High Court in the respondent's second appeal.
2. The High Court after carefully examining the evidence had reversed the finding on all the three issues, namely, (1) bona fide personal use of self and children, (2) default in payment of rent for September, 1975 onward and (3) damage to the property. On the question of personal use, the High Court noted that the landlord's own witness, A. W. 1 had stated that two shops owned by the petitioners had been lying vacant. The petitioners had not shown that the said two shops were not suitable for their use. On the question of default, the evidence showed that the tenant had remitted by money order a sum of Rs, 100 on 13-9-1975 (Exh. R. 22) and Rs, 240 on 26-11-1975 (Exh. R. 23). The rate of rent was Rs, 70 p. m. The tenant's case was that as Rs, 40 towards the rent for August, 1975 had already been paid in advance he had remitted the balance of Rs, 30 of rent for August plus Rs, 70 as rent for September, 1975 (Exh. R. 22) Upon refusal of landlord to receive it he had by the subsequent money order remitted rents also for October and November, 1975. This statement was believed by the High Court. On the question of damage, the case of the landlord was that the respondent who had taken the shop for grocery business had installed Soda Water Factory in the shop which damaged the premises. But it was found from the statement of their own witness A. W. 1 that the Soda Water Factory had been running for the last 8/9 years.
3. Obviously no question of law arises from the judgment of the High Court, which is otherwise based upon a correct appreciation of the evidence in the case. Leave to appeal is, therefore,