Ch. SHARIF AHMAD vs CHIRAGH DIN And Other
This matter arises from a dispute concerning a shop located in Surjit Building, McLeod Road, Lahore, which was auctioned as a big mansion. The petitioner claimed partnership with the second respondent regarding business in the shop, alleging that the second respondent forcibly occupied the shop after breaking its lock. Earlier, the petitioner had initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 which reached the High Court. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that he was a statutory tenant of the shop and that the auction purchasers had rented it out to the first respondent unlawfully. The core legal question involved the determination of whether the petitioner held a valid statutory tenancy or right to occupy the shop against the findings of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner lacked force and found no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.
- Whether a petitioner claiming partnership can establish statutory tenancy over a disputed shop after alleged forcible occupation?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere under leave to petition with concurrent factual findings of the High Court regarding property possession?
- Whether a third party can be granted tenancy rights by auction purchasers over a disputed premises?
- Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--Dispute between the parties relates to a shop in Surjit Building, MecLeod Road, Lahore. This building was auctioned as a 'big mansion' to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 namely Riazur Rahman Sharif and Mustafa Haider Naqvi and others who had originally been impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had entered into a partnership with respondent No. 2 Dildar Muhammad Beg in respect of the business to be conducted in the shop. The deed of partnership provided that the petitioner alone would be regarded as being in occupation of the shop. However, on 17-7-1965 respondent No. 2 is alleged to have forcibly occupied the shop after breaking its lock.
The petitioner filed proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Which went upto the High Court.
3. Main contention of the learned counsel in this petition is that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 namely Riazur Rahman Sharif and Mustafa Haider Naqvi had, in fact, rented out the shop to respondent No. 1 Chiragh Din. It was also contended that the petitioner was a statutory tenant of the shop in dispute; that respondent No. 1 had absolutely no right to occupy the shop in question.
4. We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel and find no force in them. We find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned High Court Court Judge in the impugned order. Leave refused. Petition is, consequently, dismissed.