Ch MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs NASIR BEG And 4 Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the tenant, Muhammad Ibrahim, challenging a judgment of the High Court dated 16-11-1981, which dismissed his writ petition concerning an ejectment order. The underlying matter originated from an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the petitioner on grounds including default and bona fide personal need. Both the Rent Controller and the appellate court had previously determined that the landlord’s bona fide requirement for the premises was proven. Upon review, the Supreme Court addressed the competency of the writ petition filed by the tenant. The Court held that the writ petition was not competent in the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the Court observed that the High Court had thoroughly examined all arguments raised by the petitioner and provided cogent reasons for its decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no valid grounds for interference with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition. The decision reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction is limited when lower courts have concurrently established factual findings such as bona fide personal need in rent matters.
- Is a writ petition competent against an order of a Rent Controller and an appellate court in a rent matter where findings of fact have been concurrently established?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that has provided cogent reasons for dismissing a writ petition in a rent dispute?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- This petition by Muhammad Ibrahim is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 16-11-1981, whereby his writ petition in a rent matter was dismissed.
2. The respondents-landlord had filed an application for ejectment against him, inter alia, on the ground of/ default and bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller as well 9s the learned appellate Court found that the bona fide requirement stood proved. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition, which to was dismissed, vide the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the first place we are of the view that, in the circumstances of this case, petitioner's writ petition was not even competent. Moreover we notice that the learned Judge in Chamber has discussed all the points raised before him in detail and has given cogent reasons for dismissing the writ petition. No good ground for interference has been made out. The petition is consequently dismissed.