Messrs PAK. CRAFTS EMORIUM vs BASIT YAR KHAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which restored the ejectment order passed against the petitioner-tenant by the Rent Controller on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal requirement. The petitioner contended that the Rent Controller's order was vague and that personal need was not proved. The Supreme Court considered whether any question of law arose from the concurrent findings of fact and whether the High Court erred in interfering with the first appellate court's decision. The Court held that the findings were purely ones of fact, that each aspect of the case had been well considered by the High Court in second appeal, and that no question of law arose. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent matters where no substantial question of law is made out.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact in an ejectment matter arising from rent proceedings?
- Does a second appeal lie on pure questions of fact in rent restriction cases?
- Whether default in payment of rent and personal requirement constitute valid grounds for ejectment of a tenant?
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--According to the office note this petition is barred by 9 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the certified copy of the impugned judgment from which it appears that copy was made ready on 24-12-1985. The figure "24" appears to have been read by office as "14" on the basis of an endorsement at the bottom of the copy under the signature of some person. In the circumstances, the petition is within time.
2. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in respect of a shop premises situate in Sadder Co- operative Market, Abdullah Haroon Road, Karachi. The respondent applied for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent for 13 months and personal requirement. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller on both the grounds. This order was however, set aside by the learned Additional District Judge on First Appeal. This led to the filing of a Second Appeal in the High Court by the respondent/landlord where he succeeded and the order of the Rent Controller was restored.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of Rent Controller, which was restored by the High Court, was vague in discussion of the evidence and the ground of personal need was also not proved. We have gone through the impugned judgment and find that each and every aspect of the case has been well considered particularly so as the matter was brought in Second Appeal and findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court were sought to be set aside. The findings in the case are purely one of fact and no question of law arises in the matter. The petition is, therefore dismissed.