Mst. SAEEDA AHSANULLAH RAHMANI And Others vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL HUSSAIN
This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had upheld an ejectment order issued by the Rent Controller. The original ejectment petition was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioners-tenants on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement, specifically for his son's marriage and his wife's health condition necessitating a ground-floor residence. The Rent Controller, after evaluating evidence, ordered the petitioners' ejectment, a decision subsequently affirmed by a Single Judge of the High Court. The petitioners' counsel argued that the lower courts erred in relying on a purported admission by a petitioner ignorant of English and in over-emphasizing certain depositions. The Supreme Court examined these points and held that the lower courts' findings regarding the landlord's bona fide personal requirement were questions of fact. The Court found no grounds for interference, concluding that the petition lacked merit, and consequently dismissed it.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a landlord's personal bona fide requirement for premises a question of fact?
- Are findings of fact by lower courts generally upheld by the Supreme Court in leave to appeal petitions?
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order, dated 15-5-1984 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court in the First Regular Appeal No. 139 of 1983.
2. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest Ahsanullah Rahmani was inducted as tenant of house No.961 Block No.III Liaqatabad, Karachi at a monthly rent of Rs.160 on 1-9-1972. The rent was later on raised to Rs.200 per month. After some the the respondent filed an ejectment petition before the Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal requirement of the premises in. Question because his son was to be married and also because the respondent's wife being a heart patient needs to be shifted to the ground floor. The application was contested giving rise to the following issues: (a)Whether the applicant requires the premises in good faith for his personal bona fide use and the use of his family members ?
(b)What should the order be ?
The learned Rent Controller, after considering evidence produced by the parties, ordered ejectment of the petitioners in the following terms: "In view of my finding on issue No.1, I grant the application of the applicant and direct the opponent to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the applicant within 119 days from the date of this order subject to his payment of rent for the period allowed to him."
3. Against the aforesaid order First Regular Appeal was filed in the High Court which was dismissed, as said earlier, by a learned Single Judge vide the impugned order, dated 15-5-1984 on the ground that the to witnesses namely Muhammad Iqbal Hussain and Jamal Hussain had fully corroborated their claim as contained in the ejectment applica--tion.
4. Main grievances of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the Courts below have wrongly relied on the admission on the part of petitioner Sarwatullah who, being ignorant of English language, said about the 'bona fide' only that "the witness does not know if the respondent required the premises bona fide" and thus it was not an admission; that the learned Courts below overlooked the fact that the respondent did not examine any independent witness except his son Jamal Hussain who stated that his marriage was withheld for to years for want of accommodation; that the learned Courts below over-emphasized the mistaken deposition of petitioner Sarwatullah that he heard for 6/7 .Years that respondent's son was going to be married but due to lack of accommodation the marriage was postponed.
5. We have examined the aforesaid points and find that the Courts below have found the statement of the petitioners to be, correct and this being a question of fact, no interference is, therefore, called for by this Court. We find that this petition has no merit and the same is, consequently, dismissed.