JAN MUHAMMAD vs Mst. BASHIRAN BEGUM
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the Sind High Court. The respondent landlady had filed an application under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises on the ground of personal need. The Rent Controller and the High Court concurrently found that the landlady had successfully established her requirement for the premises for personal use. The Supreme Court examined the petition and found no error of law or procedure committed by the lower courts. The Court held that the determination of the landlady's personal need is a question of fact, and since the lower courts had concurrently decided this issue against the petitioner, there was no justification for interference by the Supreme Court. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the eviction.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the personal need of a landlady in an eviction case?
- Can a tenant challenge an eviction order based on personal need if the lower courts have concurrently found the need to be established?
- Section 15, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner has been ordered by the Rent Controller to vacate the premisesin dispute and hand over its possession to the landlady (Mst. Bashiran Begum 'respondent herein) in pursuance of the application submitted by the latter under Section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The First Regular Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Sind High Court having failed, hence this petition for leave.
2. ' We have heard Mr. Ahmadullah Faruqi, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner.
3. No error of law or procedure having been committed by the Courts below, which could justify interferene by this Court, has been pointed out. The landlady alleged that she needed the premises for her personal use. The Courts below have found that she has established the said allegation. The question involved is one of fact and the two Courts below have concurrently found it against the petitioner.