Ch. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD SADIQ
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's eviction application against the respondent. The petitioner had sought the respondent's eviction from the demised shop-premises on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide use. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge both dismissed the application, and the High Court similarly dismissed the petitioner's second appeal after independently evaluating the evidence regarding personal requirement. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court misread or ignored material evidence regarding the petitioner's bona fide personal requirement for the premises. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's conclusions drawn from the evidence were legitimate and did not warrant interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement will not be interfered with where the lower courts have duly appreciated the evidence.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement in rent matters can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does the High Court's independent evaluation of evidence in a second appeal warrant interference if the conclusions are legitimate?
- What constitutes sufficient proof of personal requirement in shop eviction cases?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Facts of the case briefly stated are that petitioner filed an application for respondent's eviction from the demised shop-premises on the ground of default committed by respondent in payment of rent and also that petitioner required the premises for his personal use.
2. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence produced by the parties dismissed the application, and petitioner's appeal to the Additional District Judge also failed. He then filed a second appeal before Lahore High Court which met with the same fate, and he no seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
3. The only plea raised on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court was that due consideration under the law was not paid to the ground urged by the petitioner that he bona fide required the premises for his personal use. The High Court dealt with this aspect of the case independently, in great details, and reached the conclusion that "the appellant (petitioner herein) has failed to prove that the rented shop is required by him for his own use, and that the business premises already in his possession is not suitable (sufficient) for his needs."
4. Mr. Hakam Qureshi, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the High Court has misread the evidence and has also ignored material evidence on crucial points.
5. After having gone through the record before us in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel we find no substance in the pleas raised by the learned counsel. On the other hand, the High Court has reached certain conclusions from the evidence on record which are quite legitimate, and do not call for interference by this Court.
6. The petition is therefore dismissed.