ZAHOOR AHMAD vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and others
The petitioner sought the ejectment of respondent No. 1 from a shop on the ground of personal need. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, but the Additional District Judge set aside the order on appeal. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition, declining to interfere with a finding based on the appreciation of evidence. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly refused to interfere with the appellate court's finding of fact regarding personal need in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that since the finding of the Additional District Judge was based on the appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any infirmity, the High Court very properly refused to interfere. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that findings of fact by lower appellate forums based on evidence will not be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction unless afflicted with legal infirmity.
- Whether the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding personal need based on the appreciation of evidence?
- Does an appellate court's reversal of a Rent Controller's ejectment order warrant interference when based on proper appraisal of evidence?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner sought the ejectment of respondent No,1 from a shop mainly on the plea of personal need. The Rent Controller accepted the application of the petitioner and made an order of ejectment. However, on appeal the Additional District Judge, Sialkot set aside the order of ejectment. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court but his petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the plea of personal need was not established was based on appreciation of evidence. The High Court therefore very properly refused to interfere with his finding which did not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed.