Sh. MANZOOR AHMAD vs ALI AHMAD And 2 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the landlord's claim for personal bona fide need of a shop for his son, who was deaf and dumb and trained as a tailor, was genuine, particularly in light of allegations that the landlord possessed another shop that was let out subsequent to the filing of the ejectment application. The petitioner argued that an admission made by the landlord's attorney during proceedings indicated the lack of bona fide need and suggested the eviction was merely a pretext for rent enhancement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's assessment of the attorney's statement as equivocal was plausible. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction, affirming that such findings are not subject to reappraisal in constitutional jurisdiction absent a jurisdictional error. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by rent tribunals in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does an equivocal admission by an attorney regarding a landlord's property possession necessarily negate the bona fide need for ejectment?
- Is the possession of another shop by a landlord, which was let out after the filing of an ejectment application, sufficient to disprove the bona fide need for the premises in dispute?
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a tenant of a shop, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 8-8-1983 whereby a constitutional petition filed by him challenging the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, on 18th of April, 1983 and upheld in appeal, on 2-7-1983 was dismissed.
2. The landlord respondent has sought in December, 1980 the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop on the ground that he bona fide required it for the use of Khurshid Ahmad his adult son who was deaf and dumb but had received training as a tailor and was not gainfully employed. The petition was contested. The Rent Controller held the bona fide need established and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. The appellate Authority affirmed this constitutional petition was then filed and the ground taken up there was that at. The time when ejectment application was filed the respondent landlord had in his possession a shop which was let out subsequently. Such a controversy was not specifically raised in the pleadings by the petitioner but reliance was sought to be placed on the admission made by the attorney of the landlord which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner gave that impression The learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the constitutional petition observed that so- called admission of the attorney was equivocal and did not necessarily lead to the conclusion which the petitioner wanted to draw.
3. Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record representing the petitioner, has taken up the same ground as was taken up in the High Court. It is contended that on the basis of that admission the conclusions could be drawn that the need of the petitioner was not bona fide. It was only an attempt to get the rent enhanced as was done in the earlier similar attempts.
4. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties as also the statement of the attorney which is sought to be utilised for the purpose of maintaining this petition. We find that the High Court has taken a plausible view and it cannot be inferred nor will such an inference be on the jurisdictional plane a ground for interfering with the finding of fact concurrently recorded by the Tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction. There is no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.