MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs MUHAMMAD DIN And Other
This matter concerns five petitions for leave to appeal filed by the same petitioner against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the District Judge's decision to set aside eviction orders previously granted by the trial court. The petitioner sought the eviction of the respondents from specific premises under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1969. The appellate court had reversed the eviction decree, reasoning that the petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence establishing that the premises occupied by the respondents were part of the property transferred to the petitioner. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the lower appellate court and the High Court erred by disregarding a judicial admission made by the respondents before the trial court, wherein they acknowledged their occupation of the premises in question. The Supreme Court, finding that the issue regarding the weight and effect of this admission required further consideration, granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts wrongly refused to rely on the respondents' statement. The Court directed the preparation of the record and expedited the hearing.
- Whether a judicial admission made by a respondent regarding occupation of premises is binding upon the appellate court?
- Can an appellate court set aside an eviction order if it determines that the petitioner failed to prove the property was transferred to them?
- Does the failure of lower courts to consider a specific admission of fact by a party warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1969
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This order will dispose of 5 petitions as all of them have been filed by the same person and also involved same question.
2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioner filed 5 separate applications for eviction of the respondents from the premises in question under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1969. The learned trial Court ordered the eviction of the respondents but on appeal the learned District Judge set aside the order/decree inter alia on the ground, that now evidence has been adduced to show that the premises in possession of the respondents were apart of the property transferred to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred us to another statement made by the respondents before the learned trial Court admitting that they were in occupation of the premises in question and submitted that the learned District Judge as well as the High court has wrongly refused to rely on this admission on part of the respondents.
4. We are of the view that the question needs consideration Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose.
5. Security in the sum of Rs.1,000 in each case. Full record shall be prepared by the petitioner at his expenses. Since the matter involves a very short point the same may be filed for hearing on the 19th of this month.