GHAZANFAR ALI and another vs FIDA HUSSAIN and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision against an ejectment order concerning a shop unit in Abpara Market, Islamabad. The petitioners contended that the ejectment suit was defective due to the non-joinder of necessary parties, specifically alleging that other occupants were not included in the litigation. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the individuals mentioned by the petitioners were not tenants under the agreement with the respondent landlords, nor had they responded to the legal notices issued. The Court held that the respondents, having purchased the property, had fulfilled their obligation by serving notice upon the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court observed that the findings of the three lower courts regarding the factual disputes were concurrent and free from legal infirmity or misappraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that no error of law existed to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Does the failure to implead occupants who are not parties to a tenancy agreement constitute a fatal non-joinder of necessary parties in an ejectment suit?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by three lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of legal infirmity or misappraisal of evidence?
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpidi, dated 12-3-1988, dismissing the civil revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 9-2-1988 of the Addl. District Judge, who affirmed the ejectment order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, vide his order dated 10-10-1987 on the ejectment suit filed by the respondents against the petitioners from a Shop Unit No,699, situated in Abpara Market, Islamabad. The facts of the case in detail are given in the plaint.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners urged before us that Zafar Ali alongwith Khalid Iqbal were not party to the litigation and were in occupation of the shop in dispute and thus the suit is badly hit by non-joinder of the necessary parties. A perusal of the record will show that Zafar Ali brother of the petitioner was neither a tenant under the agreement of the respondents nor any reply to the notice issued to the petitioners was sent with respect to the respondents landlords. The respondents after the purchase of the property in dispute, were under obligation to serve notice on the occupants which they have already issued to the petitioners.
3. The point involved in this case stands concluded on question of facts by the three Courts below which suffer from no infirmity and the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any error of law or point out any mistake in the appraisal of the evidence on record. This petition is without any merit and accordingly, is dismissed.