Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SIDDIOUE Versus Mehr MUHAMMAD ALTAF And Other
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding an ejectment application. The respondents had filed for the petitioner's ejectment from a plot of land and its superstructure on the grounds of default in rent payment and property damage. The petitioner contested the claim, asserting he was only a tenant of the plot and had constructed the superstructure himself, while also disputing the alleged rental rate. The Rent Controller found the petitioner to be a defaulter and ordered his ejectment, a decision upheld by the District Judge on appeal. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and the concurrent findings of fact made by the lower courts. The Court held that there was no merit in the petition, as the findings regarding the petitioner's status as a tenant and his default were factual determinations properly adjudicated by the lower forums. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with these concurrent findings and dismissed the petition.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by lower courts in an ejectment matter?
- Does the failure to pay rent constitute sufficient grounds for an ejectment order against a tenant?
ORDER
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13-5-1989, whereby his writ petition was dismissed.
Respondent No.3 and Mst. Jhando predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.4-6 filed an ejectment application before the Rent Controller, Lahore against the petitioner from the plot measuring 10 marlas alongwith superstructure built thereon, which was a part of Khasra No.177 Khatuni No.1201 Khewat No.311, situate in Mauza Dholanwal Tehsil and District Lahore, on the ground of default in payment of rent at the rate of Rs.400 p.m. From October, 1980 to 30-9-1983 and also damage to the property in dispute. The petitioner contested the said application and claimed that he was only the tenant of the plot and the superstructure thereupon was built by the petitioner/defendant himself. It was also alleged by him that the premises was firstly rented by him at the rate of Rs.10 p.m. Which was twice enhanced to Rs.40 p.m. And finally to Rs.60 p.m. He denied the claim of the respondents of Rs.400 p.m. On the pleadings of the parties and after recording the evidence, the learned Rent Controller found the petitioner as defaulter and accepted the ejectment petition vide his order dated 25-9-1988. Appeal of the petitioner before the District Judge failed vide order dated 14-3-1989. Being aggrieved the petitioner tiled a writ petition in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed in limine.
We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have gone through the evidence on record. We have come to the conclusion that this petition has no merit which needs dismissal straightaway. The matter involved in this petition is pertaining to .The question of fact and the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he was proved to be the tenant. His contention that the superstructure built thereon by him is also held by the Courts below against him.
After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any justification for interference with 'findings of fact reached by the learned Courts below. This petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Afzal Zullah3,959 judgments
- S. Usman Ali Shah326 judgments