Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS Respondent: LAL DIN
1988 S C M R 1309
1988 S C M R 1309
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan. JJ
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
Haji LAL DIN and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.1005 of 1985, decided on 14th May, 1988.
(From the order dated 11‑11‑1985 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.4562 of 1985).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.13 & 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑ Ejectment‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑Interference with Petitioner tenant disputing relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Question whether he was a tenant under respondent was one of fact and both Rent Controller and District Judge recorded a finding in affirmative‑ Evidence on record supported the finding and High Court declined to interfere with the same‑‑No reason available to take a different view, petition. for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Sh. Naveed Sharyar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th May, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 11‑11‑1985 of the Lahore High Court whereby, in constitutional jurisdiction it declined to interfere with an order of ejectment passed against the petitioners by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to a muse which was formerly owned by one Shukkar Din. On his death, it was inherited by respondents Nos.l and 2. The case of respondents Nos.l and 2 was that petitioner No.1 was a tenant in the house under Shukkar Din and after the death of the latter, he became their tenant. On the other hand, petitioner No.1 alleged that Shukkar Din was the husband of his paternal aunt and that he had sold the house to him. Earlier, respondent No.1 had filed a civil suit for the cancellation of the sale‑deed allegedly executed by Shukkar Din in favour of petitioner No.1. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but in appeal it was decreed by the Additional District Judge.
3. The question whether petitioner No.1 was a tenant under Shukkar Din or not was one of fact. Both the learned Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge recorded a finding in the affirmative. There was evidence on the record to support this finding. The High Court declined to interfere with it and we see no reason to take a different view. The petition is dismissed.
M.I./M‑451/S Petition dismissed.