Haji TAJ DIN vs Sh. TAJ DIN and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a rent matter wherein the petitioner landlord sought eviction of the respondent tenant from a bungalow on the ground of personal and children's use. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, and the District Judge dismissed the appeals of both parties. The Lahore High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, accepted the tenant's writ petition and set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlord's possession of other urban accommodation. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court could lawfully interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction could have interfered in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower rent tribunals be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction?
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 11-3-1989, arising out of a rent matter, wherein Sh. Taj Din respondent No,1 occupied Bungalow No,75, 21 Acres Scheme, Samanabad, Lahore, as tenant of the petitioner Haji Taj Din. The said petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent No,1 from the said premises on the ground of own use and children's occupation, before the learned Rent Controller, who vide his order dated 24-6-1984 accepted the ejectment application. Both the parties filed appeals before the learned District Judge against the said ejectment order. The learned District Judge vide his single judgment dated 6-4-1985 dismissed both the appeals.
2. ' Respondent No,1 filed a Constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court, wherein he challenged the findings of the two Courts below on Issue No,2, stating therein that the landlord had sufficient urban accommodation in the same area, where the property in dispute is situated. The learned High Court accepted writ petition and vide its judgment dated 11-3-1989 set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
3. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition, we grant leave in this case to consider whether in writ jurisdiction A the High Court could have interfered in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below.
4. ' Security is Rs,5,000.
5. ' The appeal shall he prepared on the same record at an early date with direction to the parties to file additional necessary documents, if any.