FALAK SHER vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition in limine, upholding the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge directing the petitioner to vacate the demised premises and deposit the mortgage money. The core legal question concerns the scope of interference by a High Court in writ jurisdiction regarding concurrent findings of fact rendered by competent rent tribunals. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact recorded by competent tribunals regarding the non-existence of an agreement to sell cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of any illegality, jurisdictional error, misreading, non-reading of evidence, or disregard of superior court principles. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by rent tribunals can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does an agreement to sell oust the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller when lower tribunals find no such agreement exists?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against the dismissal of a constitutional petition where no legal error is shown?
ORDER
1. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---Rent Controller Samundri by order dated 12-9-1988 allowed the application of landlord Muhammad Saeed respondent, ordered Falak Sher to vacate the premises within one month. He was further directed to deposit the mortgage money amounting to Rs.12,000 in the Government Treasury within ten days.
2. Falak Sher appealed to the District Judge. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad by judgment dated 8-3-1989. Thereafter, he invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. His petition was dismissed in limine by order dated 8-4-1989. He now seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner repeated the same contentions which were raised before the High Court and repelled. He was unable to point out any legal error or proposition which deserved detailed examination by this Court.
4. The following observation by the learned Judge of the High Court who decided the Constitution petition shows that all the relevant facts, important issues and legal propositions were considered before the petition was dismissed:- "Regarding the plea that the petitioner's possession is that of a buyer on the basis of agreement to sell, it may be observed that the learned Tribunals below which, of course, are Tribunals of competent jurisdiction have found that in fact no agreement to sell has been entered into between the parties. Such concurrent finding of fact recorded by Tribunals of competent jurisdiction cannot and should not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction in absence of any illegally, jurisdictional error, misreading or non-reading of evidence, disregard of the principles enunciated by the Superior Courts and such like infirmities. No such shortcoming has been noticed in the present case:"
5. This petition for leave to appeal has no merit. It is hereby dismissed.