Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 231‑R of 1979, decided on 13^th February

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, 'Peshawar, dated 24‑11‑1979, in S. A. O. No. 50 of 1979)

----Art. 185(3)‑Question of fact‑Contention raised for first time and involving inquiry into a question of fact‑Held, cannot be taken into consideration by Supreme Court.‑[Question of fact].

Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate instructed by M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents

Date of hearing: 13th February, 1980.

The dispute in this case concerns property bearing No. 6237, situate at Cinema Road, Peshawar, of which the petitioner is the tenant and the respondents his landlords. In the year 1974, the respondents filed against the petitioner an application for his ejectment there‑from for the reason that the premises were required reasonably and in good faith for the use of Ghulam Rasool respondent‑a co‑owner.

The application was contested by the petitioner. But the same was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 18‑12‑1976. The said finding recorded by the Controller was subsequently affirmed by the District Judge, as well as the High Court, and hence this petition.

Maulvi Sirajul Haq, the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly chose not to question the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below, as well as the High Court to the effect that the premises were indeed required reason ably and, in good faith for the use of respondent Ghulam Rasool. He, however, argued that in accordance with the proved need of Ghulam Rasool he required the premises for commencing therein the business of photography, whereas the suit premises consisted of six rooms, as well as a large hall on the ground-floor. His grievance, therefore, is that the petitioner could not have been deprived of the said extensive premises, as under the circumstances only one room would have sufficed for Ghulam Rasool to commence his business .of photography therein. In support of this contention, he has filed on the record of the petition, a plan of the premises. But unfortunately for him, the said contention has been raised for the first time in this Court. And so the same cannot be taken into consideration as it involves an inquiry into a question of fact.

This being the only contention urged by the learned counsel in, which we find no force, this petition is dismissed. However, we direct that the petitioner would be allowed four months' time to vacate the premises subject to his paying the agreed rent to the respondents.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.