Mst. SAEERA BIB1 vs GHULAM MUHAM MAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the landlord against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the tenant's ejectment order by reversing findings on the issues of default and personal bona fide use. The core legal questions involve the determination of default in rent payment through money orders remitted for specific periods and the consistency between the landlord's pleadings and the testimony of her attorney husband regarding personal use. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the alleged default for specific months and the interpretation of the personal use requirement require deeper consideration. The key principle laid down is that arguable questions concerning the appreciation of evidence on default and personal use in rent matters warrant the grant of leave to appeal for a comprehensive examination of the case.
- Whether the remittance of rent through money orders constitutes a valid payment to avoid default?
- Whether a variance between the pleadings in an ejectment application and the deposition of an attorney regarding personal use vitiates the claim?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when arguable points of fact and law are raised against the reversal of an ejectment order?
ORDER
' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioner/dandlord is aggrieved by the judgment dated 1-4-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby in Second Appeal of the respondent/tenant, it set aside the order of the respondent's ejectment by reversing the findings on issues of default and personal use and dismissed the petitioner's ejectment application.
2. The rent for the alleged period of default, that is, November 1973 to March, 1974, had been remitted by three money orders, i,e, Exh. R/1, dated 22i2-1974 for Rs, 20, Exh. R/2, dated 9-3-1974 for Rs, 40 and Exh.R/3, dated 22-3-1974 for Rs,
40. Learned counsel urges that there was default in the payment of rent at least for the months of November and December, 1973.
3. On the question of personal use, the petitioner had taken the plea in her ejectment application that :{{URDU TEXT}} ' Her husband, who had appeared as her attorney, had stated : {{URDU TEXT}} ' The High Court had construed this requirement to be contrary to the ground taken in the ejectment application. Learned counsel contends tilat there was practically no conflict inasmuch as the petitioner's husband had been deposing in her place.
4. The points raised require consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Security shall be furnished in the sum of Rs, 2,500.