ABDUL WAHID and others vs KHAIL GUL and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 12-11-1988, which dismissed the civil revision and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing the ejectment suit in favour of the respondents. The core legal question concerned whether interference was warranted against concurrent factual findings establishing the tenancy of the petitioners over the disputed house. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the three courts below holding the petitioners to be tenants under the respondents on payment of khakrim constituted a pure finding of fact not warranting interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by subordinate courts in ejectment matters where the relationship of landlord and tenant is established.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding tenancy in an ejectment matter?
- Can a tenant deny the ownership of the landlord based on an unproven oral purchase?
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 12-11-1988, passed in C.R.No, 214/88, arising out of an ejectment suit decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents by the Civil Judge-II Mardan vide order dated 1-12- 1986. Appeal of the defendant/petitioner before the District Judge, Mardan and subsequent civil revision before the Peshawar High Court were dismissed on 7-2-1988 and 12-11-1988 respectively.
2. ' This was a simple suit for ejectment of a house situated in rural area of village Pirsado, Tehsil and District Mardan. Admittedly the petitioners occupied the house as a tenant and constructed the house over the site comprised in khasra No, 1202/2/2 belonging to the respondents. The petitioners tried to prove an oral purchase and denying the ownership of the respondents but there is no finding to be found in their favour and as such the three Courts below have concurrently held them as tenants under the respondents on payment of khakrim. This being essentially a finding of fact and need no interference by this Court. The petition has no merit and is therefore, dismissed.