SARDAR KHAN vs RIAZ AHMAD And Other
This case concerns an ejectment application filed by a landlord (respondent) against a tenant (petitioner) on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller granted the ejectment, but the Additional District Judge allowed the petitioner's appeal, dismissing the application, based on the assumption that the landlord already had sufficient business premises as a shareholder with his father-in-law. The High Court, in a Constitutional Petition, reversed the Additional District Judge's order, finding an error of law. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The Court reiterated that the choice in selecting premises for personal requirement lies with the landlord, and the mere fact that the landlord has another shop with a tenant is irrelevant. Furthermore, a shop belonging to the landlord's father-in-law, even if the landlord conducts business there, is not considered the landlord's own for the purpose of assessing personal requirement.
- Can findings of fact in a rent case be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction if they are based on a wrong assumption of law?
- Does the landlord's choice in selecting premises for personal requirement matter if they have another shop with a tenant?
- Is a shop where a landlord carries on business in partnership with his father-in-law considered his own for the purpose of personal requirement?
- Can a High Court correct an error of law made by an Additional District Judge in a rent case through constitutional jurisdiction?
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.-- The respondent applied for the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed shop premises on the ground of his personal requirement. The application was granted by the Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal challenging the said order was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 28-11-1983 and the respondent's ejectment application was dismissed. The respondent filed a Constitutional Petition in the High Court which was allowed as per impugned judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of factarrived at in a rent case were not liable to be interfered with in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court. The learned Additional District Judge was persuaded to set aside the order of the Rent Controller on wrong assumption of law as would appear from the following passage from his judgment; "From the evidence produced by the landlord it is proved that he was already carrying on business as share-holder with his father-in-law. There is no evidence on behalf of the landlord to show that the shop already with him was not sufficient to meet his requirement."
3. It was the above finding which was sought to, canvassed by the learned counsel before us as well. His contention was that the landlord was carrying on business in partnership with his father- in-law and, therefore, he was already in possession of a shop which was sufficient for his requirement. It was further contended that the landlord had one more shop which was with the tenant.
4. The proposition of law is by now well settled that the matter of choice in selecting the premises lies with the landlord and, therefore, the mere fact that landlord has another shop with a tenant is of no consequence. Further the assumption of the learned District Judge as per his findings reproduced above, was contrary to law because admittedly the shop where the landlord is carrying his business belongs to his father-in-law and not to him. The learned High Court has simply corrected an error of law and the impugned judgment passed by it is unexceptionable.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 14 cases
- ABDUL HUSSAIN TEHIRALLY through L. Rs, and others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT 2016 CLC 1024
- MUHAMMAD YASIN and 4 others vs IIIADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI 2008 YLR 1641
- Mst. SIKANDAR BEGUM Through Special Attorney vs Ch. SAMI ULLAH, PROPRIETOR, SHIFA MEDICO 2003 YLR 1601
- SAKHA ULLAH- Versus MST. TAHIR ALMAS ALIAS TAHIRA SHABBIR 2001 CLC 1641
- BASHIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD LUQMAN 2000 YLR 326
- SAEED MUHAMMAD vs MEHRULLAH and another 1996 PLD Quetta 48
- ABDUL RAUF Versus SHAH NAWAZ 1997 CLC 646
- ABDUL FAREED KHAN vs FEROZUDDIN 1993 CLC 515
- MANSOORUL HAQ Versus AKBAR ALI 1994 CLC 48
- HAROON KASSAM and anothers vs AZAM SULEMAN MADHA 1990 PLD Supreme Court 394
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs MUMTAZ HUSSAIN LALI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT and anothers 1989 PLD Lahore 187
- MUHAMMAD vs DILAWAR KHAN DURRANI 1987 MLD 2155
- MUHAMMAD SALFFM KHAN vs ZAMEER AHMAD KHOKHAR And ANOTHER 1997 CLC 1531
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL 1988 PLD 91