Sh. SAFDAR RASHID vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And Other
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition arising from a rent matter. The landlady sought the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of default in rent and personal requirement of the premises for use as a shop. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment based on personal need, and the Additional District Judge dismissed the tenant's appeal. The High Court subsequently dismissed the tenant's writ petition on merits. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was not even competent under the circumstances, and the High Court had rightly dismissed it with a well-reasoned judgment on merits. Consequently, finding no grounds for interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums and the High Court.
- Whether a writ petition against concurrent orders in a rent matter is competent under the circumstances?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a well-reasoned High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition in a rent dispute without valid grounds?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- This petition by Sh. Safdar Rashid is directed against the order of the High Court, dated 10-2-1982, dismissing the petitioner's writ petition in a rent matter.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly, are that Mst. Kalsoom Begum, respondent-landlady filed an application for petitioner's ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the house for personal use as a shop. The Rent Controller accepted the ejectment application on 24-7-1980 only on the ground of personal need The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala vide order, dated 30-11-1980. Not being satisfied the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, which to was dismissed, vide the impugned order.
The petitioner, has, now, come up to this Court for Leave to Appeal
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find) that in the circumstances of this case the writ petition filed by him was not even competent. The High Court has, however, given well---reasoned judgment dismissing the same on merits. No ground has been made out for interference with the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.