Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD YOUSAF JAMIL Versus Haji SHABBIR AHMAD And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, which had challenged concurrent orders of the lower forums directing the ejectment of the tenant. The core legal question concerns whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide personal requirement of the disputed premises for his son warrant interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, being based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, do not merit interference. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact concurrently rendered by courts below regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement in rent matters will not be disturbed by the apex court in appellate jurisdiction unless shown to be suffering from misreading or non-reading of evidence.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement are open to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does a landlord's requirement of the disputed premises for the use of his son constitute a valid ground for ejectment?
- Can a writ petition against an order of the District Judge in rent proceedings be maintained on questions of fact?
ORDER
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 18-7-1989, whereby his writ petition was dismissed. The ejectment of the petitioner/tenant was sought by the respondents before the learned Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent, subletting the shop in dispute and also on ground that the premises in question was required in good faith by the landlord for the use of his son. The case was decided by the learned Rent Controller only on the ground of bona fide requirement, in favour of the respondents. Appeal of the petitioner before the District Judge was dismissed and it was also ordered that the vacant possession of the shop in dispute be handed over to the respondents within two months vide order dated 21-5-1989. Subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioner challengingthe order of the District Judge was also dismissed in limine vide order dated 18-7-1989.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the findings of the Courts below. We have come to know that the bona fide requirement of the landlord in good faith for the use of his son of the disputed shop was concurrently held in favour of the respondents by the Courts below and the same being question of fact based on the proper appreciation of the evidence on record needs no interference by this Court. The petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Syed Usman Ali Shah154 judgments