Malik IFTIKHARUL HAOUE vs ABDUR RASHID
The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed his first appeal in limine and maintained the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The respondent landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the residential property was required in good faith for his personal occupation. The Rent Controller evaluated the evidence and ruled in favor of the landlord, finding the personal need proved, which decision was affirmed by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the landlord's need was not bona fide and real, pointing out that the landlord's uncle owned other properties and that the landlord was already residing with him. The Supreme Court observed that these factual aspects were not put to the landlord during cross-examination in the witness-box. Holding that no question of law arose for further examination, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether the High Court can dismiss a first appeal against an ejectment order in limine by a detailed order?
- Does the failure to cross-examine a landlord on crucial factual assertions preclude a tenant from raising those points on appeal?
- Whether a concurrent finding of fact regarding personal bona fide need by the Rent Controller and the High Court warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, a tenant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24-4-1989 whereby a first appeal against an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller Cantonments was dismissed in limine, by a detailed order.
2. The respondent land owner who purchased the House No.101/E, Mohallah Fateh Abad, Lahore Cantt. Sought the ejectment of the petitioner, amongst others, on the ground that the house was required in good faith for his personal occupation. The application was contested and the Rent Controller disposed of the controversy by observing as hereunder:---- "In support of the issue petitioner himself appeared in the witness-box and stated on oath that the disputed property is needed by him in good faith for permanent occupation. None of the witnesses produced by the respondent could shake the evidence of the petitioner. On the other hand R.W.1 and R.W.2 to some extent corroborate the evidence of the petitioner. In view of my above observation the personal need of the petitioner regarding the disputed property stands proved.
Issue is accordingly decided against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner:"
The ejectment of the petitioner was ordered by the Rent Controller on 1-2-1989.
3. While dismissing the appeal in limine, the High Court relying on the cases of Abdul Aziz and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim (PLD 1977 S.C. 442) and Mrs. Sadiq v. Syed Intekhab Hyder Abedi (1983 CLC 1623) affirmed the finding and maintained the order of ejectment.
4. Mian Iqbal Hussain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the evidence in order to demonstrate that an uncle of the respondent owned four houses in the locality, that the uncle had adopted the respondent and was keeping him in the premises as a member of his own family and not as a tenant. He has further contended that even if he was a tenant there is nothing to indicate that he was under threat of eviction from the property and his need in the circumstances could not be said to be bona fide and real.
5. The controversy on facts required resolution. It was resolved by the Rent Controller by reference to evidence. The High Court reviewed that finding of fact in the light of law applicable to the case and upheld it. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner may have some basis in the instructions that he received from his clients but unfortunately the respondent while in the witness-box was not questioned on these aspects namely, that he had been adopted by his uncle, that he was living as a member of the family and that he was not to shift and occupy the premises from which the petitioner's eviction was sought.
6. We find that on the record, as it stands, no such question of law arises in the case as may require further examination in this Court. Hence leave to appeal is refused.