Mst. SHARIFAN and others vs ABDUL JABBAR KHAN and others
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' First Appeal Against Order, which upheld the ejectment order passed against them. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners were validly considered defaulters in payment of rent regarding the disputed commercial shop. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact by both the Rent Controller and the High Court established that the petitioners were indeed defaulters in rent, notwithstanding the withdrawal of a previous ejectment petition following a rent increase and alleged private arrangement. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent by lower forums will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court in leave petitions unless compelling legal grounds are shown.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent by the Rent Controller and High Court can be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the withdrawal of a previous ejectment petition upon an increase in rent absolve the tenant from subsequent defaults?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 13th December, 1988 whereby F.A.O. Of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the respondents filed an ejectment petition against their tenant Shaukat All predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in respect of the disputed shop owned by them on the ground of non-payment of rent, and impairing the value of the property. The original tenant died during the pendency of the eviction petition and consequently his legal representatives i.e, the present petitioners were brought on the record. The petition was resisted. After hearing the parties the Rent Controller held that the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners was a defaulter and thus allowed the ejectment petition of the respondents. The F.A.O. Of the petitioners against their ejectment order, as stated above was dismissed. Hence the present petition.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that the petitioners were wrongly considered as defaulter, that previously an ejectment petition was moved in 1978 as against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on the ground of default but it was withdrawn because the rent was increased and new tenancy was created whereunder the petitioners were not to be 'ejected and that the future dispute was to be referred to Panchayat. But contrary to this undertaking the respondents brought another ejectment application on the ground of default.
4. We have perused the impugned judgment with the assistance of the learned counsel. Even after the rent was increased and the previous ejectment petition was withdrawn, the petitioners were defaulters and, therefore, subsequent ejectment petition was filed. The findings of fact of the Court of the Rent Controller as well as High Court are that the petitioners were defaulters. In that view of the matter it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. The petition is accordingly dismissed.