Mst. ASHRAF BEGUM vs Sh. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Another
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition which challenged an appellate order remanding a rent ejectment case for disposal on merits. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant rendered by an appellate authority. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower appellate court's finding was based on a misreading of evidence and whether interference was warranted under constitutional jurisdiction given that the jurisdictional fact of the relationship of landlord and tenant was at issue. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction are generally immune from constitutional interference unless shown to be based on no evidence or a misreading thereof.
- Whether a finding on a question of fact recorded by a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
- Does a misreading of evidence by an appellate authority justify interference under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Is the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant a jurisdictional fact necessary for the exercise of power under rent laws?
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--This petition is from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 6-3-1985 whereby a Constitutional Petition brought by the petitioner challenging the judgment of Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh, dated 20-2-1984 was dismissed.
2. The proceedings arose out of a rent case filed by the respondents for the ejectment of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of non--payment of rent. The petitioner denied the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in her written statement whereupon an issue was framed in this behalf. The learned Rent Controller by his order, dated 19-4-1983 came to hold "that the respondent /applicant had failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties".
The application was accordingly dismissed. However, on appeal by the respondents the finding of the trial Court was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for disposal on merits. The petitioner challenged this order in a Constitutional Petition which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded in the case by the learned Additional District Judge was clearly based on misreading of evidence and since the very question of jurisdiction for the exercise of the power of ejectment under the Rent Ordinance was depended on this finding, the learned Additional District Judge was not justified in interfering with the order of the trial Court.
4. The writ petition was dismissed on the consideration "that a finding on a question of fact recorded by a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction unless it is based on no evidence or it suffers from misreading of evidence cannot be interfered within writ jurisdiction". The learned counsel then referred us to the evidence on the record and pointed out that in spite of the above observation the learned High Court refused to set aside the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge.
5. The contentions raised require examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,000. The stay is already granted to continue till the disposal of the appeal.