MUSHTAQ AHMED KHAN Versus Khawaja MUSTAFAUL HASSAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the High Court of Sind, which ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises. The core legal question was whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises, given that the landlord's family comprised ten members and that the landlord suffered from arthritis, making it difficult to climb stairs to the first floor. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums regarding the landlord's personal requirement were sustainable and based on sufficient evidence, noting that the existing four rooms on the first floor were inadequate for a large family of ten members. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact by statutory forums regarding personal bona fide requirement are normally within their exclusive jurisdiction to determine conclusively, and findings of fact will not be interfered with in the absence of a substantial question of law.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower forums regarding personal requirement of a landlord can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Is medical evidence mandatory to establish a landlord's physical ailment pleaded as part of personal bona fide requirement?
- Whether a family size of ten members residing in four rooms sufficiently establishes bona fide personal requirement for additional premises?
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order cf his eviction dated 19-7-1983 passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed in appeal by the High Court of Sind vide judgment dated 6-11-1983. The Rent Controller, on the evidence produced before him found that the respondent/landlord had proved his case that he required the demised premises let out to the petitioner situated on the ground floor of the building in which he was in occupation of the first floor, for his bona fide personal use as the first floor accommodation was not sufficient for the needs of the landlord and his family, as well as that he suffers from Artheritis- on account of which he could not climb the stairs of the first floor of the building. On re-examination of the evidence on the record the learned Judge in the High Court affirmed these findings and held that there were in all about ten persons living with the landlord including his unmarried daughter, married son with his family and a married daughter with her family. On these findings of fact the two Courts below have come to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord was in good faith and rejected the plea of the petitioner that his eviction is being sought for the ulterior purpose of enhancing the rate of rent.
In seeking leave to appeal Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada contended that the findings of the two Courts below are not sustainable on the evidence produced by the parties and that the landlord has failed to establish the bona fides of his requirement. He submitted that no medical evidence was produced in support of the landlord's assertion that he was suffering from Artheritis and that the male fide of the claim was apparent in view of the background of the ejectment case which showed that in the past the landlord had increased the rent.
After hearing the learned counsel at length we, however, find no force in these contentions. The High Court has specifically adverted to the points reiterated before us by the learned counsel and has found no force in them for cogent reasons. The undeniable fact is that A there are for rooms on the first floor out of which one is used jointly by all the inmates of the house and the remaining three rooms are hardly sufficient for a large family of ten members including children. Therefore, even if the ground of illness is excluded from consideration the case for personal requirement is sustainable on the facts established on the record. At any rate the contentions raised assailed findings of fact which are normally within the jurisdiction of the statutory forums to conclusively determine and no question of law has been raised before us. This petition is, therefore, without force and is accordingly dismissed.