MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD SHOAIB
This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the petitioner on the ground of personal and bona fide need for a shop. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on 15 May 1985, finding the need not genuine, but the appellate court reversed this decision and accepted the landlord's testimony regarding his bona fide need. The petitioner challenged this factual conclusion through a constitutional petition in the High Court, arguing that the solitary statement of the landlord was insufficient to establish bona fide need. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellate court committed no legal or procedural illegality, as the law does not require a specific number of witnesses and it is the quality of evidence that determines acceptance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's view and dismissed the petition, ruling that there was no legal error in the impugned judgments.
- Whether the solitary statement of a landlord is sufficient to establish bona fide personal need for ejectment?
- Does the law require any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact in ejectment proceedings?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need in constitutional jurisdiction?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--It was contended by the petitioner while resisting the application for ejectment on the ground of personal need that it was neither genuine nor bona fide which plea prevailed with the Rent Controller who dismissed the application on 15th of May, 1985, but in appeal the appellate Court accepted the testimony of the respondent in regard to his need being bona fide.
2. The petitioner filed a constitution petition to challenge the conclusion on facts by the appellate Court and contended that the solitary statement of the landlord was not enough to establish his bona fide need of the shop for his own occupation. The High Court held that the appellate Court in holding that the evidence of the respondent was sufficient to prove his need committed no illegality either of law or procedure which conclusion is unexceptionable as the law does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact. There is therefore, no legal error in the judgment as it is the quality of the evidence which determines its acceptance.
3. Accordingly, there is no substance in this petition which is dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- ZIKARIA KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS 2013 YLR 159
- M. KASSAM & BROS. Versus SHARABAT KHAN 1992 MLD 1225
- KAMAL GUL vs MUHAMMAD ZAHEER 1991 MLD 1724
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN 1991 SCMR 846
- GHULAM RASOOL vs MUHAMMAD WARIS BISMIL 1991 CLC 1049
- SHAUKAT HUSSAIN QURESHI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And Other 1989 MLD 4537