ABDUL SALAM And Another vs MUNIR AHMED And Other
Civil petition for leave to appeal arose against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the tenants' first appeal against an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the landlords' claim of personal bona fide need was genuine despite a prior rent-enhancement compromise concerning another shop with a different tenant, and whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need could be interfered with. The Supreme Court held that the factum of a compromise in other proceedings did not detract from the bona fide personal need established for the specific shop in question, which was required for a brother's business. The Court reaffirmed the legal principle that the determination of bona fide personal need is essentially a question of fact, and concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Controller and the High Court are not open to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
- Does a landlord's prior compromise involving rent enhancement with another tenant negate their bona fide personal need for a specific premises?
- Whether the determination of a landlord's bona fide personal need is essentially a question of fact?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding personal bona fide need?
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The petitioners, who are tenants in respect of the shop in question, are aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Sind, dated 14-10-1984, rejecting their first appeal from the order of ejectment passed against them by the Rent Controller.
2. The ejectment had been ordered on acceptance of the landlords plea of personal need. The case of the landlords was that they were six brothers and three sisters, that Munir Ahmed, the eldest amongst the brothers, was running a shop while the others had no place of business, that the shop was needed by Atiq, one of the brothers, for business of hosiery and general merchandise and that the shop in question, which opened on the main road, was suitable for that business. The High Court found force in the contention and while dismissing the petitioners' appeal allowed them six months' the to vacate the shop.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the landlords' need could not be genuine as they had compromised an ejectment proceeding with their another tenant Muhammad Farooq, upon his agreeing to enhance the rent. Munir Ahmed explained in his cross-examination that the matter had been before the Martial Law authorities where a new rate of rent had been settled. Be that as it may, the factum of compromise, if any, would not detract from the landlords need for the particular shop. The question of personal need is essentially one of fact and the concurrent decision, on the facts of the case, is not open to interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.