Mst. FEHMIDA ALAM vs Mst. ZAIBUN NISA SHAIKH and 6 others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a High Court order which had upheld an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement of the premises. The petitioner, who was operating a school on the premises, challenged the eviction. The Supreme Court examined the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court, noting that the High Court's order and the Trial Court's judgment did not suffer from any misreading of evidence or misconstruction of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no valid grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. However, upon the petitioner's request, the Court granted an extension of time for vacating the premises until 30th October 2001, conditional upon the continued payment of rent, failing which a writ of possession would be issued without further notice.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by a Rent Controller and an Appellate Court in an eviction matter?
- Does an order of eviction based on bona fide personal requirement require interference if there is no misreading of evidence or misconstruction of law?
- Can the Supreme Court extend the time for vacating premises in an eviction case upon the request of the petitioner?
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---This petition for leave to appeal arises out of High Court order, dated 23- 10-2000 passed in F.R.A. No,279 of 1999. By the impugned order learned High Court upheld the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the premises but in view of the fact that the premises are being used for running a school allowed the petitioner to vacate the premises by 30th June, 2001 subject to payment of rent.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner we do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Court as the order of the High Court and judgment of the Trial Court do not suffer from misreading of evidence or misconstruction of law.
3. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. However, at the request of the petitioner's counsel we extend the time for vacating the premises up to 30th October, 2001 subject to payment of usual rent failing which writ of possession shall issue without prior notice.
Leave to .