SARDAR KHAN and others vs ABDUR RAHIM and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant of urban property against a High Court judgment that allowed the landlords' constitutional petition and restored an ejectment order originally passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal questions addressed were whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the landlord's bona fide requirement and whether an agreement to sell, executed between the landlord and a third party during the pendency of the writ petition, should invalidate the ejectment order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment contained no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in evaluating the evidence regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement and in determining whether to consider subsequent developments, such as the alleged agreement to sell, during the writ proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision and refused leave to appeal, thereby upholding the ejectment order.
- Does an agreement to sell executed during the pendency of a writ petition automatically invalidate a prior ejectment order?
- Is it within the discretionary power of the High Court to ignore or notice developments occurring during the pendency of a writ petition?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment on the basis of alleged misreading of evidence regarding the bona fide requirement of a landlord?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant of urban property against the acceptance by the High Court of respondents-landlords' constitutional petition and restoration of the order of the ejectment passed by the Rent Controller.
2. ' Two questions are now left to be resolved; (1) whether the finding of the High Court, regarding the wrong approach of the Appellate Court on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord, was not correct; and (2) whether the alleged agreement to sell executed during the pendency of the writ petition between the landlord and third party sought to be relied upon before the High Court from the petitioners side will not make any difference in so far as the order of ejectment of the petitioners is concerned.
3. The first question relates, amongst similar others, to the question of misreading of evidence also.
4. After hearing the learned counsel in this behalf, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment which might be noticed by this Court.
5. ' Regarding the second question also, it is within the discretionary field of the High Court to notice or ignore a development which takes place during the pendency of the writ petition before it.
6. Otherwise .Too, the impugned judgment is neither without jurisdiction nor illegal on account of the decision of the second point by the High Court against the petitioners. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.
7. ' Leave to .