KARIM BAKHSH vs Haji GHULAM DASTGIR And Other
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner on grounds of rent default and personal need. The petitioner resisted the application by denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and subsequently instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership regarding the disputed property. The Rent Controller found the relationship of landlord and tenant established against the petitioner and ordered his ejectment. This decision was affirmed by the appellate authority and upheld by the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether concurrent findings of fact establishing a landlord-tenant relationship warrant interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower forums. The Court laid down that concurrent factual determinations regarding tenancy relationships will not be disturbed, and the mere pendency of a declaratory suit regarding ownership does not preclude or invalidate ejectment proceedings under rent laws.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Does the filing of a civil suit for a declaration of ownership by a tenant oust or stay the jurisdiction of rent authorities to decide an ejectment application?
- Can concurrent findings of fact on tenancy be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Respondents 1 to 4 filed an ejectment application on 11-2-1985 against the petitioner on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of the rent since 9-4-1981 and that they needed the property for personal use. The petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Issue was accordingly framed by the learned Rent Controller. After recording the evidence and hearing the arguments, the learned Rent Controller found in favour of the landlords vide order dated 24-1-1989 and directed ejectment of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority, the Additional District Judge vide order dated 30-9-1989. The orders were challenged through writ petition No.6475 of 1989 which was dismissed on 26-11-1989. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not the tenant of the respondents and that he had himself filed a suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the property in dispute.
3. The issue as regards the relationship of 'landlord' and tenant was determined on the basis of the evidence produced before the learned Rent Controller and he came to the adverse finding against the petitioner. The same was upheld in appeal. The matter was exhaustively argued and determined by the learned single Judge who upheld the findings of the competent Courts on the issue.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find hardly any good cause to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. The contention that the petitioner has filed a suit for a declaration of the property in dispute to be vesting in him will be determined by the competent Courts in due course.