GHULAM MURTAZA vs ABOUL REHMAN And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an order by the District Judge, Sargodha, directing the petitioner to surrender possession of a demised shop to the respondent-landlord. The core legal question was whether the landlord had established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises and whether the existing lease agreement precluded eviction by creating a perpetual tenancy. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's findings, holding that the District Judge had correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the landlord's bona fide need. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the lease agreement contemplated a perpetual tenancy, finding no evidence that the landlord intended to deprive himself of statutory rights under rent laws. The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its limited constitutional jurisdiction by refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on a proper interpretation of the lease agreement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is not a substitute for re-evaluating factual findings properly determined by lower courts.
- Does a lease agreement providing for rent enhancement necessarily create a perpetual tenancy that bars a landlord from seeking eviction?
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement in the exercise of its limited constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a landlord debarred from seeking eviction under rent laws if the lease agreement contemplates a continuance of tenancy on enhanced rent?
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 26-3-1984 dismissing a Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner and in result upholding the judgment of the District Judge, Sargodha passed on appeal by which petitioner was directed to hand over possession of the demised shop to respondent-landlord. Learned District Judge reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that respondent-landlord had successfully proved that he bona fide required the demised shop for himself and also for the use of his children.
2. It was in view of this finding of fact which is based on correct appreciation of the evidence recorded in the case that the High Court refused to interfere in exercise of its limited Constitutional jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
3. Malik Muhammad Qayyum learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the lease-agreement executed by respondent-landlord contemplated continuance of tenancy on enhanced rate of rent and as such respondent was debarred from seeking eviction. In this behalf learned counsel sought to rely on the rule laid down by this Court in Mrs. Zohra Begum v. Messrs Pakistan Burmah-Shell Ltd. PLD 1984 SC 38. .
4. We find no substances in this plea, for, the High Court on proper interpretation of the lease- agreement has correctly held that there is no basis for holding that the landlord .Intended to create a perpetual lease for the benefit of the tenant by depriving himself of the benefits /facilities under the Rent Laws."
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.