INAMULLAH HASHMI vs IRFAN QURESHI
This petition arises out of an application for ejectment filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground of bona fide personal need. The trial court allowed the ejectment application, but the appellate court reversed this decision. Upon a second appeal, the High Court restored the trial court's order for ejectment, concurring with the finding of bona fide personal use. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether findings of fact regarding bona fide personal need and the validity of the landlord's title could be challenged in the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide personal need cannot be reopened, and that the tenant was precluded from challenging the sale of the property after explicitly acknowledging the change of ownership and agreeing to pay rent to the new landlord through counsel. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact on personal need are final, and a tenant who acknowledges a new landlord and undertakes to pay rent cannot subsequently contest the validity of the landlord's title in ejectment proceedings.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal need can be challenged in a petition before the Supreme Court?
- Is a tenant permitted to challenge the sale and ownership of a house after acknowledging the change of ownership and agreeing to pay rent to the new landlord?
- Does a petition for ejectment raise a question of law when the contentions are solely based on concluded questions of fact?
ORDER
1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition arises out of an application for ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal need of the landlord, the respondent herein. The application was allowed by the trial Court, but on appeal by the petitioner who was the tenant the learned Additional District Judge reversed the decision of the trial Court. The respondent filed a second appeal before the High Court and the order of the trial Court directing ejectment was restored. The High Court has agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the respondent-landlord did require the house in question for his bona fide personal use.
2. It has been contended before us that the application for ejectment was mala fide. The High Court having agreed with the Rent Controller that the house was required bona fide for personal use, this contention cannot now be permitted to be raised, as it has been concluded by findings of fact.
3. ' The petitioner has next challenged the sale whereby the respondent purchased the house in dispute. This contention again is not tenable in view of the letter written by the petitioner's lawyer in response to the notice served on him by the respondent. In the said letter the change of ownership of the house in question was noted and it was stated that the petitioner would pay the rent to the respondent from the 1st of November 1969, at certain rate.
4. ' No point of law has been raised before us nor does it arise on the facts of the case. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. ' We however, allow the petitioner two months' time from date to vacate the quarter in question.