Raja SHER ALI vs DISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge concurrent findings of lower judicial forums regarding the forcible reoccupation of a shop by a tenant. The petitioner was a tenant who vacated the shop for reconstruction by the landlords but reoccupied it without consent before reconstruction was complete. The landlords filed a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, which was decreed by the trial court, and subsequent revision and writ petitions were dismissed. The core legal question concerned whether the tenant could lawfully reoccupy the property prior to completion based on an alleged undertaking. The Supreme Court held that forcible reoccupation of the premises while reconstruction was still incomplete was unlawful, and any alleged undertaking to relet was to take effect only after completion. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of fact against the tenant.
- Can a tenant forcibly reoccupy leased premises before the completion of reconstruction based on an alleged undertaking to relet?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding forcible occupation recorded by the trial court?
- Does a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 lie against a tenant who reoccupies property without consent?
- Section 9, Specific Relief Act 1877
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was a tenant in a shop situate at G.T. Road near Dina in District Jhelum. He vacated the shop in order to permit the landlords to carry out reconstruction after demolition. Before the reconstruction was complete he reoccupied the shop without the consent or permission of the landlords. His forcible occupation led the landlords to file a suit under section 9, Specific Relief Act. The suit was decreed by the trial. Court and the petitioner's revision petition before the District Judge and writ petition in the High Court remained unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There is a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court that the petitioner had forcibly occupied the shop. This finding was recorded by the learned trial Court after considering the entire evidence. We are not persuaded to interfere with it.
3. The case of the petitioner before us is that he had vacated the shop only temporarily and that the landlords had given him an undertaking that they would relet the shop to him after reconstruction. One of the landlords appeared in the witness-box and denied that any such undertaking was given to the petitioner. However that may be, the shop was still in the process of reconstruction when the petitioner took over its possession. Thus, even if there was any undertaking given by the landlords, that was to be fulfilled after the reconstruction was complete. In this case, the petitioner, as already noticed, entered the shop while it was still in an incomplete state. We would therefore, dismiss this petition.