Mirza MUHAMMAD HANIF BAIG vs Raja ALI AKBAR and 3 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order issued by a Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by an Additional District Judge and a High Court judge in a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the landlords' requirement for the premises for their personal use was bona fide, a determination that hinges on factual findings. The Supreme Court examined the concurrent findings of the three lower forums regarding the bona fide personal need of the landlords. Finding no legal error or justification to interfere with the concurrent factual conclusions reached by the lower courts, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that where multiple forums have consistently examined the evidence and reached a concurrent finding of fact regarding the bona fide requirement of a landlord, the appellate court will not interfere with such findings absent a compelling reason. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the Court granted the tenant a three-month period to vacate the premises upon an explicit undertaking to surrender possession.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal need of a landlord for rented premises?
- Can a tenant be granted additional time to vacate premises upon an undertaking given to the Supreme Court?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner is a tenant in a house situate in Millat Colony, Rawalpindi. On the application of the landlords the Rent Controller has ordered his eviction on the ground that the house was required by the landlords for their personal use. The order of the Rent Controller has been upheld by the Additional District Judge after reappraisal of the evidence. The Constitution petition preferred by the petitioner Against the order of eviction has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The question whether the house was required bona fide for their personal use by the landlords is one of fact. The Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge and the High Court examined the evidence led by the parties on this question and recorded a finding against the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for him has not been able to make out any case for interference with the conclusion arrived at by the three forums. We therefore do not think that this is a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted.
3. With the consent of the attorney of the landlords the petitioner is given three months to vacate the house. This concession has been given to him on his explicit undertaking that on or before the expiry of the said period, that is, on or before 2-6-1993, he will voluntarily hand over the physical possession of the house to the landlords.
4. This petition is disposed of accordingly.