MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs NASEER AHMAD and others
This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by landlords against their tenant for a shop situated in Lahore on the ground of personal need. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction application, but the District Judge set it aside on appeal and dismissed the application. The landlords invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which accepted the writ petition, quashed the District Judge's order, and restored the eviction order after finding the District Judge's reasons for rejecting the plea of personal need to be untenable. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interfered with the appellate court's factual findings regarding personal need in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court did not suffer from any infirmity and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the High Court may interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with an appellate rent authority's findings when such findings are based on untenable reasons and discard evidence on grounds not recognized by law.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of a District Judge regarding personal need in rent matters under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can an appellate rent authority discard landlord's evidence on grounds not recognized by law?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was a tenant under respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in a shop situate in Paisa Akhbar Street, New Anarkali, Lahore. The said respondents moved an application before the Rent Controller for his eviction on the ground that it was needed by one of them namely, respondent No, 1, for personal need. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller but in appeal by the petitioner the District Judge, Lahore set aside the order of eviction and dismissed the application. The respondents invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the District Judge. A learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition, quashed the order of the District Judge and restored that of the Rent Controller.The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
2. After examining the record, the High Court found that the reasons given by the learned District Judge in rejecting the plea of personal need were entirely untenable and that the learned District Judge had proceeded to discard the landlords evidence on grounds not recognised by law. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and we are of the view that the view taken by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Haji MOHIBULLAH & Co. and others vs Khawaja BAHAUDDIN 1990 SCMR 1070