Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal from Original Order No: 17 of 1975/BWP, decided or. 30th March, 1981.

‑‑S. 13‑Allegation of enhanced rent being demanded by landlord, not put to him‑In absence of such suggestion such question of fact lost its legal worth and rightly considered as worthless.

‑‑S. 15 (4)‑Second appeal‑Question' whether enhanced rent demanded by landlord, one of fact and concurrently decided by both tribunals against appellant, held, cannot be interfered with in second appeal.‑[Question of fact‑Second appeal].

‑‑S. 13‑Eviction proceedings‑Court or Tribunal having jurisdiction to determine question‑Cannot be said to have acted illegally or with material irregularity merely because it came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law‑[Jurisdiction].

Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD1974SC139ref.

Mustafa Khan for Appellant.

G. N. Gohar for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 28th March, 1981.

This second appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Rahimyarkhan dated 26‑11‑1975 whereby he upheld the order of the Rent Controller, Khanpur dated 18‑11‑1974 and directed the landlord respondent to be put in possession of the shop in dispute within two months.

2. It was stated that the shop in dispute was needed by the respon dent landlord in good faith for the use of his son. The plea was controverted on the ground that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent which the appellant refused to accept. The Rent Controller apprais ed the evidence of the parties and found that the shop was genuinely needed by the respondent and that the evidence of tenant was interested and untrustworthy. The same was the view of the learned District Judge. He held that the evidence of the appellant did not prove that the respondent had demanded increased rent from the appellant in their presence. The learned counsel argued that the statements of the appellant's witnesses were not properly read and discussed on the point of enhancement of rent. It is true that Nazir Ahmad R. W. 1. Muhammad Ramzan R. W. 2 and the appellant .R. W. 3, gave an account how the landlord demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000 and rent at the rate of Rs. 100 instead of Rs. 90 already being charged, but due to the discrepancies, however, immaterial they were, the statements, could not inspire confidence in the learned Courts below. However, the evidence was rightly not believed, because the fact, that mere rent was demanded by the landlord, was never put to him, and in the absence of such all suggestion, the said question of fact had lost its legal worth and was rightly considered worthless. The question whether an enhanced rent was demanded by the respondent in bad faith was one of fact which has concurrently been decided by both the tribunals against the appellant and the same cannot be interfered with in second appeal. According to Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (P L D 1974 S C 139) it is well settled that where a Court or a tribunal has jurisdiction and it determines that question, it cannot be said that acted illegally or with material irregularity merely because it came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law.

For the foregoing reasons there is no force in the appeal. It is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is however given 60 days to vacate the shop failing which execution proceedings would be taken against him.

M. Y. M. Appeal 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.