HABIB KHAN vs Haji HAROON UR RASHID
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had set aside an order of the Rent Controller directing the respondent's ejectment from a disputed shop. The Rent Controller had initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the requirement for the shop for personal use was bona fide. However, the High Court reversed this decision, reasoning that previous proceedings under the PATH Regulation, while not strictly constituting res judicata under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, nevertheless precluded the petitioner's claim based on general principles of res judicata. The petitioner contends that the High Court failed to independently evaluate the evidence, relying instead on inconsistent prior decisions from Riwaji Courts, and ignored findings by the Additional Commissioner that supported the petitioner's claim. The Supreme Court, finding that the matter requires further consideration regarding the application of res judicata and the proper evaluation of evidence by the High Court, granted leave to appeal to examine these issues in detail.
- Does a decision in proceedings under the PATH Regulation operate as res judicata in subsequent rent ejectment proceedings?
- Can a High Court set aside a Rent Controller's finding of fact regarding bona fide personal use without independent evaluation of the evidence?
- Do general principles of res judicata apply to rent control proceedings where statutory provisions do not strictly apply?
- Section 14, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The petitioner's application for the, ejectment of the respondent from the shop in dispute was allowed by the learned Rent Controller finding that he did require it for his personal use, in good faith. But on appeal this finding was set aside by the High Court on the ground that in the proceedings under the PATH Regulation the plea of the present petitioner regarding bona fide personal use had not been accepted and even though the said decision did not strictly operate as rcs judicata under the provisions of section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, but they did, however, stand in the way of the petitioner under the general principles of res judicata. This view of the High Court is challenged through this petition for leave to appeal by the petitioner.
2. In support of this petition it is submitted that the Rent Controller had applied his mind to the facts of the case and had found that the petitioner did bona fide require the shop in dispute for his personal use. But the learned Judge in the High Court without applying his own mind thereto but relying on the judgment passed by the Riwaji Courts upset this finding. He also points out that the decisions on this point even by the said Courts were not unanimous in so far as the Additional Commissioner Malakand in his order dated 5-8-1975 had found that the petitioner wanted the shop for his own use and that the respondent had got his own shop which he had given to others on rent, but this aspect of the matter was not adverted to by the Deputy Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P., Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Peshawar, in his revisional order dated 14-5-1977.
3. This case requires further consideration. Leave is, accordingly, granted.
4. Security.Rs.5,000.
5. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any and put up for hearing at an early date.