TAJ MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 17-11-1981 in a rent matter, whereby the petitioners' constitutional petition against concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge was dismissed. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is competent when the sole contention raised is the appreciation of evidence on questions of fact by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was not competent in light of its prior observation in Abdul Rahman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522, as the appreciation of factual evidence cannot be reopened through constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed as frivolous, establishing the principle that findings of fact concurrently arrived at by rent forums cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction on the ground of misappreciation of evidence.
- Is a constitutional petition competent when the sole ground raised is the misappreciation of evidence on questions of fact by rent courts?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the appellate court be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 17-11-1981, in a rent matter.
2. The facts, briefly, are that the respondents filed an application, for the eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question, located in Landa Bazar, Lahore, in the Court of Rent Controller, Lahore. After considering the evidence led by the parties the learned Rent Controller ordered their eviction, vide judgment, dated 1-3-1975. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said judgment which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 18-9-1980. They then filed a Constitutional petition in the High Court which, too, was dismissed.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have now come up to this Court through the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners frankly admitted before us that the only contention that he had raised before the High Court was that the two Courts below (i.e. The learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge) had not properly appreciated the evidence on the question of fact involved in the case.
We are of the view that the petitioners' writ petition was not competent in view of the observation by this Court in Abdul Rahman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being frivolous.