Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Khawaja AMJAD AHSAN and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the rent authorities, which dismissed the landlord's eviction application seeking possession of the demised premises for the personal need of his son. The core legal question involves the determination of bona fide personal need in rent matters and the scope of interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction against concurrent findings of fact where a second appeal has been barred by statute. The Supreme Court held that the question of bona fide need entails reviewing the landlord's previous conduct, resources, and liabilities, and that concurrent findings of fact based on such comprehensive evaluation cannot be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction, especially when a writ petition cannot be utilized to circumvent the statutory abolition of second appeals. The Court laid down the principle that factual determinations regarding bona fide personal requirement rendered by rent tribunals are final and insulated from interference under constitutional jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or based on extraneous factors amounting to jurisdictional error.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal need of a landlord can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can a writ petition be used as a substitute for a second appeal where the second appeal under the rent restriction law has been abolished?
- What factors are relevant for determining the bona fide personal requirement of a landlord in eviction proceedings?
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner, a landlord, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 22-3-1987 in a Constitutional petition upholding the rejection of his application seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal need of his son.
2. ' Mr. Nasrullah Waraich, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned judgment does not deal with all aspects of the case, and that the Rent Control authorities took extraneous factors into consideration for deciding the question of personal need.
3. ' The bona fide need of the landlord was in issue. The Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence held as hereunder:- "In these circumstances I come to the only conclusion that there was absence of bona fide on the part of the petitioner and consequently the issue is decided against the petitioner."
4. ' The appellate Authority endorsed the conclusion by observing as follows:- "Now let us consider whether their need was genuine. It is in the evidence of the appellant himself and is a fact which cannot be denied that he is owner of two factories. He manufactures spades and supplies them throughout Pakistan. He is a monopelist in this trade in this part of the country.
5. He has a number of sons and all of them are working with him under and name and style of Firm Haji Muhammad Sharif & Sons. On the file Exh.s. 12.10 to R.17 are the documents showing his factories, godowns and residences. Some of them are in his name while the others are in the names of his sons. It cannot be believed that two sons of such a rich man would live in the single room on upper storey of the demised building which is situated in non-residential area namely Gandam Mandi Sialkot."
6. ' The High Court by the impugned order declined to interfere observing as follows:- "There is a concurrent finding of fact on both the issues by the two Courts below. Even otherwise, since second appeal under the Rent Restriction Ordinance has been abolished, therefore, writ petition cannot be allowed as a device to overreach the statutory provision."
7. The question of bona fide of a party, necessarily brings for review his entire previous conduct, his standing and resources and liabilities relevant to the question in issue. It cannot be said that by examining the question in such a depth the authorities have overstepped the limits or drawn conclusions which could not be drawn. Indeed such a conclusion on facts could not be disturbed in Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. ' Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.