KHALID PERVAIZ vs AMIR AKHTAR BHATTI And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioner, a tenant of a shop in Lahore Cantonment, challenged the eviction order, arguing that the respondents' claim of requiring the premises for personal use was not bona fide but a pretext to increase rent. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlord's personal need for the property were supported by evidence and free from legal infirmity. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the Additional Rent Controller and the High Court were sound and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the landlord's requirement for personal use was established. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will generally not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in rent restriction matters unless a clear legal error or infirmity is demonstrated.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding a landlord's personal need for premises?
- Is a landlord's claim for personal use of a rented shop sufficient grounds for eviction under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act?
- Section 17, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner is occupying a shop in Lahore Cantonment as a tenant under the respondent. On the application of the respondents under section 17, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, the Additional Rent Controller directed him to vacate the shop. The petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. One of the pleas taken by the respondents in their application was that they needed the shop for their personal use. After considering; the evidence led by the parties the learned Additional Rent Controller found substance in this plea. His finding on this plea was affirmed by the High Court, The case of the petitioner is that the respondents were carrying on business in another shop and that the plea that they needed the shop in their possession for personal use was not bona fide but was intended merely to raise the rent.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that the concurrent finding of the High Court and the learned Rent Controller suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed.