Mst. SHEHNAZ BEGUM vs Mst. PUKHRAJ BEGUM
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of her ejectment application filed against the respondent tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had dismissed the ejectment application, holding that the default was condonable as the rent had been tendered but refused. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this finding and accepted the appeal, a decision subsequently upheld in second appeal by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the first appellate court erred in rejecting the oral evidence regarding the tender of rent and that the High Court improperly preferred the first appellate court's view over that of the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the first appellate court was fully entitled to re-appraise the evidence and reach a contrary conclusion, and as the petitioner failed to point out any material error in the finding of fact, the petition lacked substance. The petition was accordingly dismissed based on the undertaking given by the respondent.
- Whether the first appellate court is entitled to re-appraise evidence and reach a contrary conclusion to that of the Rent Controller?
- Does the High Court err in upholding the factual conclusions of the first appellate court regarding the tender of rent in second appeal without a showing of material error?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the caveator respondent, we had dismissed the petition by a short order embracing the undertaking given by the latter.
2. These are the reasons for it.
3. ' The petitioner sued the respondent for her ejectment from house No, C/172, situate in Hira Mandi, Lahore, on the ground of default in the payment of rent for the period from the 15th of February, 1969 to the 14th of May, 1969, which was resisted on the ground that the petitioner had tendered the rent but it was refused ; and, thereafter, it was sent by money order which again was returned as by that time the application for her ejectment had been filed. The Rent Controller, by order dated 17th of June, 1971, dismissed the application holding that there was a default but it was condonable as the rent had been tendered but refused. The Additional District Judge reversed this conclusion and accepted the appeal which order was upheld in second appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in seeking leave to appeal against this order, contended that there was oral evidence to support the plea of the tender of rent which was erroneously rejected by the first appellate Court and consequently its conclusion that the rent was neither offered nor tendered was untenable. The learned counsel further submitted that this view should not have been upheld by the High Court in preference to that of the Rent. Controller, whose conclusion was based on a correct appreciation of evidence. We are not impressed by this submission a the learned counsel was unable to satisfy us as to in what respect the finding of fact suffered from any material error. The first appellate Court was entitled to re-appraise the evidence and to reach a contrary conclusion. Accordingly, we see no impropriety in it.
5. ' The petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed.