BUTT BROTHERS & CO. vs Mst. MAHBOOB BEGUM and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had upheld the eviction of a tenant from a shop and room. The landlord had initiated proceedings under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, alleging default in rent payment, personal need, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller ordered eviction based on default, rejecting the claims of personal need and damage. On appeal, the Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of default and additionally concluded that the property was required for the personal use of the landlord's son. The petitioner challenged these findings in the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the finding of default was based on a misreading of evidence and that the landlord possessed sufficient alternative space. The Supreme Court, finding no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding default and personal need, dismissed the petition, thereby maintaining the eviction order.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default and personal need in a rent eviction case?
- Is a finding of default in rent payment sufficient grounds for an eviction order under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Section 13, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner is in occupation of a shop and a room on McLeod Road, Lahore. The room and the shop formed part of the composite building. The room and the portion of the building overlying the shop were transferred to respondent No,l. The dispute between the parties relates to the room. On 11-3-1982, respondent No,1 brought an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent, personal need and damage. The application was resisted by the petitioner. The parties went to trial on a number of issues. The learned Rent Controller found that the petitioner was defaulter in the payment of rent but rejected the pleas of respondent No,1 that she needed the property for personal need or that the petitioner had caused damage to the room.
He directed the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge maintained the finding of the Rent Controller on the issue of default and further went on to hold that the room in dispute was needed by respondent No,1 for the personal use of her son.
Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of ejectment. It was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the finding on the issue of default was based on misreading of evidence and further that the learned Additional District Judge entirely ignored the evidence led by the petitioner to refute the pica of personal need. He further contends that respondent No,1 was in possession of sufficient space which could adequately meet the requirements of her son.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not persuaded that the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the issue of default in the payment of rent which was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge requires interference. We are also not persuaded that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on the issue of personal need suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed.