1983 PLP 464 (SCMR)

SHAH NAWAZ KHAN, J.‑Faqir Muhammad filed application for the ejectment of the Respondent Muhammad Ibrahim in the Court of Rent Controller on 19‑7‑1977. Earlier Faqir Muhammad 'served a notice on Muhammad Ibrahim requiring him to vacate the shop in question for his personal bona fide use in good‑faith. Muhammad Ibrahim did not oblige Faqir Muhammad. The case was contested by Muhammad Ibrahim and the Rent Controller, ultimately by order dated 30‑9‑1978 dismissed his petition. On appeal, the District Judge, Jacobabad, came to a different conclusion. He held that the petitioner‑appellant wanted the shop in good faith and bona fide for his personal use, and, therefore, he decided that the order of the Rent Controller was wrong and the respondent was liable to be ejected. He, however, passed no order as to costs. Muhammad Ibrahim challenged that order of the District Judge before the High Court of Sind, but a Division Bench of the High Court concurred with the findings of the District Judge and dismissed the appeal after giving two months time to the tenant to put the landlord in possession. The High Court held that as far as the relationship of landlord and tenant was concerned, there is no dispute about that fact and once it is accepted, the appellant would not be entitled to challenge the validity of the transfer in favour of the respondent, particularly when the appellant has not attributed any mala fides against the respondent in his written objections. They also dismissed the contention of the appellant that there are some other shops in the names of the sons of the respondent, and that this fact would not be of any assistance to the appellant as it could not be said with certainty that it was the respondent who was actually the owner of those shops. Muhammad Ibrahim has now challenged that finding before this Court and is seeking permission to be granted leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Before us the main question, which was raised from the side of the petitioner is whether the High Court was justified in accepting the findings of the District Judge and not accepting the findings of the Rent Controller, and consequently that the two Courts below have not properly taken into consideration the admitted facts that the two other adjoining shops were disposed of by the landlord during the pendency of the instant case. No special ground has been shown and on a question of fact we feel ourselves unable to go into it. Mala fides alleged by the tenant was not considered although these points were attended to by the High Court Moreover, mala fides has not been mentioned in the written objections submitted before the High Court. Basing its conclusion on the material on record, the High Court was justified in accepting the findings of the District Judge as correct. We are, therefore, of the view that leave to appeal cannot be granted in the instant case. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.