MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs Haji ABDUL MAJID
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's First Appeal from Order (F.A.O.) concerning an eviction order. The respondent landlord had initiated ejectment proceedings against the petitioner tenant, alleging default in the payment of rent for the months of September and October 1979. The Additional Rent Controller found that the petitioner had indeed committed default in the payment of rent for the specified period and consequently ordered his eviction. The petitioner challenged this decision before the High Court, which upheld the Rent Controller's findings. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought to challenge the concurrent findings of fact regarding the rental default. The Supreme Court observed that the facts regarding the default were admitted and had been consistently decided against the petitioner by the lower forums. Finding no legal error or justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, thereby affirming the eviction order.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default in an ejectment petition?
- Does an admitted default in rent payment justify an order of eviction against a tenant?
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 29 May, 1.989 whereby F.A.O. Of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent had filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner from a shop on the ground that he had defaulted for two months in the payment of rent i.e. Months of September and October 1979. The Additional Rent Controller found that the petitioner had committed default in regard to these two months. He therefore ordered his eviction. Thereupon the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by way of FA.O. Which has been dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present petition. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was a defaulter in respect of the payment of rent for the months mentioned above and this question of fact has been decided against the petitioner throughout. In that view of the matter no interference is called for. As a result this petition is dismissed.