GHULAM AHMAD BUTT vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS BUTT through Legal Heirs
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the eviction of the petitioner-tenant. The core legal question concerns the validity of the eviction order passed on grounds of default in rent payment and personal need, affirmed through successive tiers of adjudication. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower forums suffered from no misreading or non-reading of evidence, and that substantial justice had been done. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, while granting the petitioner a period of six months to vacate the premises upon the continuous payment of rent. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence in rent matters will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court absent any misreading or non-reading of evidence.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent matters without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Can a landlord seek eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in rent and personal requirement after purchasing the property through a registered sale-deed?
ORDER
1. ' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 17-9-1995, the respondent, Muhammad Ilyas Butt (now deceased) instituted an application for eviction of petitioner Ghulam Ahmad Butt from Shop No.1 of Property No.NE-IXI-S-21, Akbar Road, Kachhupura, Lahore on the ground that he purchased the property through registered sale-deed on 27-9-1993. The petitioner was already a tenant under the previous owner. Thus, he became a tenant of the rest as well. The petitioner did not pay rent to the respondent since 1-2-1995. The property was also required by the respondent for his personal use.
2. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller, Lahore vide his judgment, dated 30-9-1998.
3. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by an Additional District Judge, Lahore on 15-5-1999. S.A.O.
4. No.144 of 1999 having been instittued by the petitioner was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide impugned, judgment, dated 5-11-1999. This is a petition for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, we hold the view that a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the forums below. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence available on record. A substantial justice has been done by the forums below. However, in the interest of justice, six months' time is given to the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent subject to his continuously paying the rent to the respondent. He shall hand over the vacant possession of the property to the respondent on or before 28-6-2000 failing which he shall be ousted from the premises without notice with the aid of the Police.
5. ' With this observation, there is no substance in the petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.