FAKHAR-UD-DIN vs Mst. MANSAB BIBI and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the lower forums directing his eviction from the workshop in dispute. The respondent landlords had filed ejectment applications under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the grounds of default in rent and causing damage to the property. The Rent Controller and the appellate courts found that the relationship of landlord and tenant was duly established through a proved rent deed, and the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that the property was evacuee or that the tenancy agreement was forged. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, supported by unimpeachable evidence of the scribe and marginal witnesses, suffered from no misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Court affirmed that where the execution of the rent deed is duly proved, leave to appeal against concurrent factual determinations will be refused. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant can be interfered with by the Supreme Court without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does the failure to request the comparison of a thumb-impression by an expert before the Rent Controller preclude a party from challenging the execution of a rent deed?
- Whether an ejectment application under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is maintainable when the relationship of landlord and tenant is duly proved?
- Section 13, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioner in both the petitions seeks leave to appeal against a single judgment dated 26-4-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Second Appeal from Orders Nos.23 and 24 of 2001.
2. The respondent in each case filed separate application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 being owner/landlord of the workshop in dispute for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in: payment of rent and causing damage to the same. The Rent Controller framed as many as four issues. The application of the respondent in each case was allowed by the Rent Controller by order dated 2-3-2000. The separate appeals of the petitioner were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Multan by order dated 12-10-2001. The petitioner filed Second Appeal from Orders Nos.23 and 24 of 2001 before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench which were dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 26-4-2002. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the property in dispute was evacuee which was occupied by the petitioner immediately after the partition of the Sub-Continent. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not established from the evidence. The Rent Controller was required'to refer the respondent in each ease to get the determination of the title over the disputed property by the Civil Court. The tenancy agreement dated 1-2-1989 was a forged and fabricated document which had not been executed by the petitioner in favour of each respondent.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. All the forums below recorded concurrent findings of fact that the respondent in each case had discharged the onus of pivotal Issue No,3 regarding the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. The rent deed dated 10-2-1989 (Exh.A/1) had been duly proved by producing its scribe and marginal witnesses whose statements were found to be unimpeachable, coherent and confidence-inspiring.
The learned counsel failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence. The High Court justifiably took the view that the petitioner had not made any request before the Rent Controller for cbmparison of the thumb-impression of the petitioner by an expert.
The findings of fact recorded by the Lahore High Court do not suffer from any infirmity. These are not fit cases for grant of leave to appeal.
5. These petitions have no merit and the same are dismissed accordingly.