Hakim GULSHER MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the Rent Controller's eviction order on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with concurrent findings of fact rendered by the lower forums regarding the landlord's personal need. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court re-appraised the case and confirmed the findings of fact based on a correct appreciation of evidence, there is no scope for interference by the apex court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that concurrent findings of fact rooted in evidence regarding personal bona fide use will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding personal bona fide use?
- Can a tenant challenge an eviction order based on personal requirement when the findings are rooted in evidence?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court dated 20-4-1986 dismissing petitioner's appeal and thereby upholding the order of the Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground 'that respondent-landlord bona fide required the same for personal use.
2. We find that the High Court on re-appraisal of the case confirmed the finding of the fact reached by the Rent Controller on the basis of correct appreciation of evidence. There is therefore no scope for interference by this Court in view of the concurrent findings of fact which are rooted in evidence that the respondent-landlord bona fide requires the premises for his personal use.
3. The petition is dismissed.