Haji MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs IFTIKHAR SAEED and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment matter under rent restriction law, where the petitioner (tenant) challenged the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement for the premises. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the landlord's bona fide need were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had consistently failed on the issue of bona fide requirement across all forums. Finding that the lower courts had rendered concurrent findings of fact and that the impugned judgment did not suffer from any infirmity of law or principle regarding the appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in rent restriction matters unless there is a clear legal error or misapplication of principle in the appreciation of evidence.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement in a rent restriction case?
- Does the appreciation of evidence by a Rent Controller constitute a question of law sufficient for interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal by a tenant under Rent Restriction Law (in ejectment matter) is directed; against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court. He has throughout lost on the issue relating to the bona fide requirement of respondent/landlord.
2. ' All the Courts have concurrently rendered findings of fact which go against the petitioner. Learned counsel has raised points relating to the appreciation of the evidence/material before the Rent Controller. In this behalf the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity of law or principle. This petition has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed.