ABDUL GHANI vs Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 22nd March 1983, which dismissed a constitutional petition filed by a tenant challenging his ejectment ordered on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal requirement of the landlady. The core legal question involved the propriety of invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction against concurrent findings of fact on ejectment and whether the High Court properly considered the plea of misreading or non-reading of the record. The Supreme Court held that the case was concluded by concurrent findings of fact and that the refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction was unexceptionable. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that interference with findings of fact under constitutional jurisdiction is unwarranted unless properly justified.
- Whether a constitutional writ petition is a proper remedy to challenge concurrent findings of fact in ejectment matters?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent and personal requirement?
- Is the refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction unexceptionable when findings of fact are conclusive?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 22nd March 1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition filed by a tenant, arising out of orders of his* ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent .And personal requirement of the respondent landlady, was dismissed.
2. Although the learned Judge in the High Court dealt with the question of law whether or not a Constitutional writ petition would be a proper remedy in cases like the present one, he considered the case as one concluded by findings of fact.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that the plea of misreading/non-reading of the record, has not been properly considered by the High Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel we do not find it a fit case for interference with the findings of fact. Refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction is unexceptionable, This petition accordingly is dismissed.