Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 66 of 1983, decided on 7th May, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 12‑1‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 3478 of 1982).

--- Art. 185(3)‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Ejectment of tenant on ground of default in payment of rent, causing damage to property and personal requirement Tenant claiming ownership of property on basis of adverse possession and on ground that he purchased said property from one F‑Conten tion raised by tenant before High Court and Supreme Court mainly concerning findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below‑Facts involved in case examined by Courts below in exercise of respective jurisdiction under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959‑Tenant afforded twice necessary opportunity to lead evidence‑Refusal of High Court to interfere with findings of fact in constitutional Jurisdiction, held, was unexceptionable in circumstances‑ Petition for leave to appeal refused.

Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Afzal Suhail P L D 1981 S C 246 ref.

Nisar Ahmad Butt, Advocate instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners.

M. Anwar Bhinder, Advocate instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate- on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th May, 1983.

This petition for leave to appeal is from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 12‑1‑1983 whereby petitioner's constitution petition challenging his eviction from the disputed premises on the basis of the order of the Rent Controller as confirmed by the learned District Judge was dismissed.

The respondent‑landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed, premises by means of an application, dated 10‑4‑1979 on the ground of default in payment of rent causing damage to the property and personal requirement. The application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, that he had purchased the property from one Fazal Din and further that he had become owner of the property in dispute by adverse possession.

In an earlier round of litigation, the learned Rent Controller had ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed premises on 21‑5‑1980 which was maintained in appeal. However, the orders aforesaid were set aside by the learned High Court on a constitution petition filed by the petitioner and the case was remanded to the learned Rent Controller for fresh decision after recording of necessary evidence of the parties. In the remand proceedings ejectment order was again passed by the Rent Controller on 20‑3‑1982 by the learned District Judge, Gujranwala. The above two orders were challenged by the petitioner in a constitution petition before the learned High Court which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.

The contentions raised before the learned High Court as well as before us in this petition mainly concern the findings of fact arrived at by the learned two Courts of the Rent Controller and the District Judge, Gujranwala. The facts involved in the case were duly examined bye the learned two Courts below in the exercise of their respective jurisdiction under the rent law. Moreover, the petitioner was twice afforded necessary opportunity as mentioned above, to lead evidence in the case. In the circumstances, the judgment of the learned High Court refusing to interfere with the finding of fact is constitutional jurisdiction is unexceptionable in the light of the rule laid down by this Court in the case of Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Afzul Suhail (PLD 1981 SC246).

The petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly.

M, Z. M. 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.