BASHIR AHMAD vs RENT CONTROLLER And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge regarding an ejectment application. The landlord, a British national of Pakistani origin, sought the eviction of the tenant from a shop in Rawalpindi, citing personal bona fide requirement. The lower courts had dismissed the application, doubting the landlord's intent to settle in Pakistan given his foreign residency and family status. The High Court, however, allowed the landlord's constitutional petition, reasoning that his foreign nationality and employment did not disqualify him from seeking possession, and that the statutory protection under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, provided sufficient safeguards against misuse. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the High Court correctly re-appraised the evidence and did not rely on conjectures. The Court affirmed that the High Court possesses the authority to interfere with concurrent findings when they are based on an improper reading of evidence, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Does the acquisition of foreign nationality disqualify a landlord from seeking eviction on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement?
- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in rent matters?
- Does the statutory provision for restoring possession to a tenant if a landlord fails to occupy premises serve as a sufficient safeguard against mala fide ejectment claims?
- Section 13(4), Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- The petitioner's case is that an ejectment application was filed on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of Shop No. D/58 Urdu Bazar, Rawalpindi by respondent No.3. The petitioner resisted the application on the ground that the landlord- respondent was a permanent resident of U.K. Having settled there by acquiring British nationality and having his whole family there including his sons who were studying in various British educational institutions. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application on the ground that the respondent-landlord had failed to substantiate his plea of personal requirement and held "Admittedly the petitioner has a British nationality and his children were still in England and he draws his pension from England. There is no inspiring evidence on record to convince that petitioner has permanently settled in Pakistan..."
2. The respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi who also made same observation regarding personal requirement of the respondent /landlord and dismissed the appeal vide his judgment dated 14-9- 1981. The respondent then filed constitutional petition in the High Court and the learned Single Judge observed in the impugned judgment dated 24-4-1984.
"As to his bona fide needs the appellant explained at length that though his sons were still studying in England under the patronage of their Mamoon, he himself had become a disabled person by getting his fingers chopped of in an accident rendering him incapable to work there any more and, therefore, was compulsively in need of his own shop to do the business of a draper. His own statement, was claimed to have ordinarily been accepted because the law did not contemplate doubting his veracity at the very outset and provided a guarantee under subsection (4) of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (as amended up-to-date) of restoring possession to the respondent-tenant in case he, after seeking ejectment, did not occupy the premises for his personal use. It was added that the mere fact of his working abroad was not at all a disqualification. Fazal Azim and another v. Tariq Mahmood and another PLD ---1982 SC 218 and Abdul Quddus v. District Judge, Sialkot and others 1982 CLC 2355 (2) provided ample authority for the view. Likewise acquiring British nationality was said to be nothing extraordinary, as it did not have the effect of denuding the appellant of his original nationality. Under the law it was a case of dual nationality and that is why he was presently back home as a Pakistani citizen."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that jurisdiction to interfere with the appreciation of evidence and concurrent finding of the to Courts below and drawing different conclusion by the learned High Court Judge was not justified; that in rent matters, second appeals have been abolished and there was, therefore, no justification for the learned High Court to interfere on the basis of section 13(4) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; that the learned Single Judge has remanded the case to the Additional District Judge with the direction to pass an appropriate order, while, it is submitted by the learned counsel, nothing is left to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge as everything has been decided already by the learned High Court Judge himself and as such the remand order is without any purpose.
4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we find that this is not a conclusion arrived at by the learned High Court Judge merely on the basis of conjectures. He has read the evidence in its correct perspective and has arrived at a conclusion, which cannot be considered as contrary to the accepted principles of re-appraisal of the evidence. Moreover, it is not in all cases where the concurrent finding based on improper reading of evidence cannot be interfered by the High Court. However, in this case the learned High Court Judge has remanded the case leaving the option still open to the learned Additional District Judge to pass a proper order. We find no merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.