NOOR ALAM and others vs MUHAMMAD AMIR
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the ejectment of the petitioners from a shop in dispute. The respondent landlord had filed an ejectment petition under Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting, demolition and reconstruction, and personal requirement. The Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition on the ground of demolition and reconstruction for personal use, which order was affirmed by the High Court in appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court failed to decide the question of the bona fide need of the disputed property by the landlord. The Supreme Court held that the High Court thoroughly considered the question of fact regarding the dilapidated condition of the property and its bona fide requirement for reconstruction. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide requirement of a rented premises for demolition and reconstruction due to dilapidated condition warrant no interference by the apex court.
- Whether the High Court failed to decide the question of bona fide need for the disputed shop?
- Does the requirement of demolition and reconstruction of a dilapidated property constitute valid ground for ejectment?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the condition of rented premises be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Section 17, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 22-5-1989, whereby F.A.O. Of the petitioners against the order of the Rent Controller, Rawalpindi dated 29-11-1988, was dismissed.
2. ' Mohammad Amir respondent filed an ejectment petition under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the petitioners from the shop in dispute, in the Court of the learned Rent Controller, Rawalpindi, on the grounds of default in payment of rent subletting the shop in dispute to Mansabdar petitioner No, 2; demolition of the shop in dispute and its reconstruction in accordance with the approved plan and for personal requirement of the shop in dispute. The petitioners denied the allegations in the ejectment petition and contested the same.
3. The learned Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed contesting issues and after recording the evidence adduced by the parties accepted the ejectment petition only on the ground that the shop in question was required by respondent owner for its demolition and reconstruction for his personal use. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 29-11-1988 directed the petitioners to vacate and hand over possession of the shop in dispute to respondent within 90 days after passing this order. The petitioners' appeal against this order before the High Court was dismissed vide order dated 22-5-1989 and they were directed to vacate and surrender the possession subject to payment of agreed rent of the shop in dispute to the respondent within two months.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The main point argued before us was that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has left undecided the question of bona fide need of the disputed shop by the applicant/ respondent. We have gone through the judgment with the help of the learned counsel for petitioners and find that the only material point for decision which was urged was the question whether the owner required a demolition and reconstruction of the shop in dispute. The petitioners are admittedly in possession of a room and a verandah and a similar accommodation is in occupation of a contiguous tenant namely; Muhammad Rafique. As the roof of the room in possession of Muhammad Rafiquc has fallen down, we find that the bona fide need of the respondent of the property in dispute is dealt with by the learned High Court in the following words:-- "At the time of filing of the ejectment application and also the statement made by him before the Rent Controller, he was about to retire from school service but has since then retired. His case is that the property Nos.212/H, 212/I shall be demolished by him and in its place, new construction as indicated in plan Ex. P1 shall be raised. It was admitted that property in possession of Khawaja Corporation (212/G) is in good shape and shall neither be dismantled nor reconstructed."
5. In view of the above narration it is now quite clear that the property in possession of the petitioners alongwith the one in possession of Muhammad Rafique really require dismantling and reconstruction due to its dilapidated condition being the roof from part of it had already fallen down. This question of fact has thoroughly been discussed and considered by the learned High Court in its impugned judgment which needs no interference by this Court. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.