KHAIR MOHAMMAD vs AIJAZ HUSSAIN
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second rent appeal by the High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed house on the ground of reasonable and good faith requirement by the respondent for his personal use due to illness. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could raise a new plea regarding the non-service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court held that the point raised was a mixed question of fact and law that could not be allowed to be raised for the first time in these proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that mixed questions of fact and law cannot be agitated for the first time in leave to appeal proceedings.
- Can a plea regarding the non-service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act be raised for the first time in leave to appeal proceedings?
- Whether a mixed question of fact and law can be allowed to be raised in the Supreme Court when not urged before the lower forums?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act
ORDER
1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of house No. C/406, Chital Chawri, Hyderabad. Respondent filed an application before the Rent Controller for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that it was reason--able and in good faith required by him for his own use as he was suffering from T. B. The learned Rent Controller by order dated the 19th September 1968, granted the application. This order was also upheld by the Additional District Judge, Hyderabad in Civil Appeal No. 265 of 1969. The matter was then taken to the High Court and Second Rent Appeal No. 122 was dismissed on the 27th April 1970. The High Court held that the property was required reasonably and in good faith by the respondent for his personal use. The High Court, however, did not allow the petitioner to raise the plea that no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was served upon him. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
2. The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be allowed to be e raised in these proceedings. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.