Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court dated 29th March, 1981

Passed in Writ Petition No. 880 of 1981

Arts. 199 & 185 (3)-Constitutional jurisdiction-Controller as well as District Judge disbelieving evidence of Handwriting Expert stating impugned receipts to be not forged-High Court declining to interfere on ground of tribunals having given reasons for not believing Expert produced by petitioner and findings even if erroneous could not warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction-Question of believing or not believing evidence in circumstances of case, held, one of fact and as such no ground for Supreme Court to differ from.-

Rafiq Ahmad Khan Bangash, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi, Advocates-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of 'nearing ; 23rd August 1981.

--The petitioner, a tenant in a portion of Bungalow No. 64, Abid Majid Road, Lahore Cantonment, was ordered to be ejected by the Rent Controller on 21-5-1980. His appeal before the Additional District Judge, Lahore and Writ Petition No. 880 of 1981, before the Lahore High Court, having failed on 25-1-1981 and 29-3-1981 respectively, he is now seeking leave to appeal.

2. The ejectment of the petitioner had been directed upon the finding that he had defaulted in compliance of an order passed under section 17 (8) the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. By that order the petitioner read been asked to deposit arrears of rent from 1-5-1976 to 30-5-1978 with the stipulation that if he had already paid any rent for the period, he could deduct the same. The petitioner made certain deductions on account of his having already paid the rent and produced receipts in respect of such payments. The landlord denied the genuineness of receipts Exh. P. 1 to P. 3. This led to the framing of an issue and recording of evidence produced by the parties. The petitioner produced Mr. M. A. Nomani, Handwriting Expert, to prove the signatures of the landlord on those receipts but for reasons recorded. the Controller as well as the Appellate Authority disbelieved the evidence. the. Court declined to interfere observing that the tribunals had given reasons for their not believing the evidence produced by the petitioner and that even if their findings were erroneous, that would not warrant as interference b

The High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.

3. The question of believing or disbelieving the evidence in the circum stances of the case is one of fact and as such we see no ground to differ from the view taken by the High Court. The petition is. There fore, dismissed. A the request of the petitioner's counsel, he is, however, allowed three months time to vacate the premises on the condition that he shall surrender possession voluntarily and continue to pay rent in the meantime.

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.