ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN vs Mst. AMINA BEGUM
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal arising from separate proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, involving the same parties and the same commercial premises. The core legal questions were whether the respondent-landlady had established a bona fide personal requirement for the shop for her son's business, and whether the petitioner-tenant had committed a default in the payment of rent. In both instances, the Rent Controller and the High Court had concurrently ruled in favor of the landlady, finding that the personal requirement was proven and that the tenant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the rent default. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement and rent default were supported by the evidence and had been concurrently decided by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference and dismissed both petitions, affirming the eviction orders. The judgment reinforces the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, when supported by evidence, are generally not disturbed in appellate jurisdiction.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement in rent cases?
- Does a tenant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for rent default justify an eviction order?
- Is a landlord's requirement for a shop for their son's business a valid ground for ejectment under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance?
- Section 15, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' S. A. NUSRAT, J.--This order will dispose of the above two petitions, which though arise out of two separate proceedings filed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, but relate to the same premises and are between the same parties.
2. The dispute in the case relates to a shop owned by the respondent. By an application made under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, ejectment of the petitioner was sought by the respondent from the said premises on the ground that the shop was required by the respondent for the use of her son namely Noor Ahmad, who wanted to start his own business. The application was resisted by the petitioner whereupon an issue 'whether the disputed shop was required by the respondent in good faith for the use of her son Noor Ahmad', was framed by the Rent Controller. After recording the evidence of the parties, the issue was decided in favour of the landlady and the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question.
The order of the Rent Controller was challenged in appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
3. The learned High Court has found that the respondent had successfully proved her case of bona fide requirement whereas the petitioner was unable to produce any evidence in support of his defence.
4. We heard the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment as also the order of the Rent Controller. The issue of personal requirement stands decided concurrently by two Courts on the basis of evidence and no question of law arises in the case for consideration. C.P.
No,24-K of 1987, therefore, merits no consideration and is dismissed.
5. In C. P. No,455-K of 1987, eviction proceedings were initiated by the respondent/landlady against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. The two Courts concurrently found that the petitioner had committed default in payment of rent. The explanation furnished by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and, for good reasons, as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
6. The order of eviction passed on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the respondent was maintained by the High Court as per judgment impugned in C.P. No,24-K of 1987, which has been dismissed by this Court as mentioned above. In this view of the matter, this petition, which though of no value to the petitioner, has no merit and is dismissed.