GUL MEHAR KHAN vs Syed AKRAM ALI
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Sind High Court, which affirmed an eviction order issued by the Rent Controller against the petitioner. The Rent Controller had ordered the petitioner's eviction on the grounds of default in rent payment and the respondent-landlord's bona fide personal requirement of the premises for his family of fifteen members. The petitioner contested the eviction by denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, asserting instead that he held title to the property, and argued that the matter should have been adjudicated by a civil court. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the High Court, which had conducted a re-appraisal of the evidence and concluded that the landlord-tenant relationship was established and the requirement for the premises was bona fide. The Supreme Court held that since the findings of fact were firmly rooted in the evidence presented, there was no legal basis for interference by the appellate court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the eviction order.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact regarding the landlord-tenant relationship if they are based on evidence?
- Is a dispute regarding the title of a property sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller when the landlord-tenant relationship is established?
- Does a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises constitute a valid ground for eviction under rent laws?
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 25-3-1984 whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller, dated 31-10-1983 directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises was confirmed. The Rent Controller passed that order on being satisfied with respondent-landlord's plea that petitioner, his tenant, was defaulter in payment of rent and he also bona fide required the premises for himself and his family consisting of 15 members. Petitioner raised the plea that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but it was rejected by the Rent Controller on the basis of evidence recorded in the case.
2. Mr. Gul Zaman Khan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the High Court has not appreciated petitioner's plea that he, and not the respondent, is the owner of the premises and since the dispute related to the title of the property it should have been left to the civil Court to decide the controversy.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the findings of the High Court on the other issues involved in the case are also erroneous.
4. We find that the High Court on re-appraisal of the evidence recorded in the case has geld as a finding of fact that petitioner is the tenant of the respondent and 'that respondent's assertion that he bona fide requires the premises for himself and his family stands proved on record. Since these findings are rooted in evidence, there is no scope for this Court to interfere.
5. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- IQBAL Versus RAHIM SHAH 1989 MLD 3635
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUB Etc. vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH ITS DEPUTY K.L.R. 1987 Labour & Service 243