KHUDA BAKHSH vs ABDUL HAQUE And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a rent dispute spanning multiple rounds of litigation, wherein the respondent-landlord sought the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a commercial shop on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application, but the appellate authority reversed this finding, established the default in rent and personal need, and ordered ejectment. The tenant's Second Appeal from Order abated by operation of law, subsequent to which his constitutional writ petition before the High Court was dismissed. Upon further petition, the Supreme Court evaluated the matter and observed that the writ petition essentially agitated factual controversies which were not competent for writ jurisdiction. The Court held that factual findings concurrently arrived at by the appellate authority do not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction unless shown to be illegal or suffering from jurisdictional defects. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a writ petition is competent against concurrent factual findings in a rent matter?
- Does default in payment of rent justify the ejectment of a tenant?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the dismissal of a writ petition relating to pure questions of fact?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Khuda Bakhsh petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 24-4-1984 dismissing his writ petition in a rent matter.
2. This case has a long history and this is the third round of litigation between the parties. For the purpose of disposal of this petition, however, the relevant facts are that the respondent-landlord applied for petitioner's eviction from Shop No. 130, Ward No. 6, Bhawana Bazar, Faisalabad, in January, 1976, on the ground of non-payment of rent by him. This application was rejected by the Rent Controller. But on appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, by his judgment, dated 17-1-1980, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that the petitioner had committed default of payment of rent and also came to the conclusion that the ground of bona fide personal need proved. He, therefore, ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question.
Feeling aggrieved the, petitioner filed an S. A . O. , which subsequently abated by operation of law.
He then filed a writ petition which, to, was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
Hence this petition.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned judgment we feel that the ground on which the writ petition was filed merely related to questions of the same was not, therefore--- competent and should have been dismissed on this ground alone. The High Court has, however, also considered the case on merits and found no force in it.
4. For the foregoing reasons we do not consider it a fit case for interference. The petition is consequently dismissed.