Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH vs GHULAM RABBANI and another
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Sindh High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition filed against concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge regarding the eviction of a tenant. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in upholding the concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's default in rent payment, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with such findings in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it cannot reappraise evidence that has already been concurrently appraised by two lower courts and affirmed by the High Court. The Court emphasized the principle that in its constitutional jurisdiction, it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a significant legal or factual infirmity is demonstrated. Finding no such infirmity, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal, though it granted the petitioner a two-month period to vacate the premises, subject to the payment of all arrears and future rent.
- Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction when there are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction upon a proven default in the payment of rent?
' HAMID ALI MIRZA,J.--- This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against an order, dated 9- 12-2005 in Constitutional Petition No,139 of 2005 passed by learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court at Karachi, whereby the said C.P. Was dismissed, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the memo. Of petition and the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He in the first instance requested for grant of time but then he argued on merits contending that the petitioner has not committed any default in the payment of rent, therefore, impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and two Courts below cannot be sustained.
4. We do not find merit and substance in the said contention.
5. The Rent Controller on perusal of evidence came to a correct finding that the petitioner was defaulter in the payment of rent at the rate of Rs,1,900 per month from the month of February, 1999 till April, 2000 which finding of fact was affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi. The said finding of fact was challenged in C.P. No,139 of 2005 before the High Court of Sindh which too was dismissed as such A affirmed the concurrent findings of two Courts below. On concurrent findings of fact this Court being a constitutional Court cannot in its constitutional jurisdiction reappraise the evidence which was appraised by the two Courts below and affirmed by the High Court. No legal or factual infirmity has been pointed out, consequently no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out which is declined and the petition is dismissed.
6. However, by consent petitioner is granted two months period to vacate the premises subject to payment of arrears as well as future rent and utility charges to the respondent/landlord within one month and in failure thereof the petitioner would be liable to be evicted forthwith without notice in the execution proceedings with police aid if necessary.