MUHAMMAD SHARIF through L.rs,. vs VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an eviction order against the petitioners. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was a tenant of two shops, and the respondents sought eviction on the ground of default in rent payment from September 1995. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application, but the Appellate Court reversed this decision, finding the tenant in default. The High Court subsequently dismissed the tenant's constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the tenant had committed a willful default in rent payment, given the tenant's claim that rent was paid but receipts were not issued, and that subsequent rent was deposited in court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the tenant failed to substantiate the claim of payment, as no receipts existed and the respondents denied receiving the funds. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that in the absence of evidence of payment, the finding of default in rent payment is a factual determination that warrants no interference in appellate jurisdiction.
- Can a tenant be evicted for default in rent payment if the tenant claims to have paid the rent but lacks receipts?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding rent default?
- Is the burden of proof on the tenant to establish payment of rent when the landlord denies receipt?
ORDER
' GULAM RABBANI, J.--- Petitioners, seek permission to appeal against the judgment, dated 11-9- 2006 whereby learned Judge in Chambers, dismissed their petition.
2. Late Muhammad Sharif, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, Nos.1 to 6 was tenant of two shops bearings Nos.14 and 15, Mumtaz Cloth Market Liaquatabad, Karachi. Respondents Nos.3 to 9 made an application seeking eviction of late Muhammad Sharif from the shops in question on the sole ground of default in payment of rent from September, 1995. Learned 3rd Senior Civil Judge and Controller, Karachi, dismissed their application vide judgment, dated 30-3-2002. Respondents challenged the judgment by filing appeal which, learned Vth Additional District Judge, Central, Karachi accepted and directed petitioners, to vacate disputed premises within 30 days from the judgment, dated 16-9-2004 passed by him. Being aggrieved, petitioners, filed before High Court of Sindh a constitutional petition, which was dismissed vide judgment, impugned herein.
3. We have heard Mr. Anwar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court learned counsel for the petitioners, and with his assistance, we have gone through the documents referred to by him Learned counsel contended that the petitioners, had paid to respondents the agreed rent from September, 1995 to February, 1996; thereafter, remitted the rent through money orders, but on account of their refusal to receive the sum petitioners, were forced to deposit it in Court in miscellaneous Rent Application bearing No,100 of 1996. Learned counsel stressed that the petitioners,, therefore, cannot be termed as wilful defaulters,. He averred that in the past, petitioners, used to pay rent in lump sum and for the disputed period of time; too, they paid rent but no receipt was issued for the same.
4. We have given due attention to the arguments of learned counsel. Admitted fact is that there is no receipt for payment of rent for the months from September, 1995 onward. Learned counsel simply stated that there was practice to pay in lump sum but he did not say in affirmative or in the negative that in the past no receipt was issued; as well. Perusal of impugned order shows that two of private respondents appeared in witness-box and denied assertion of petitioners, about payment of the rent from September, 1995 to May, 1996. Thus, it becomes hard to accept the plea of petitioners, that respondents received the rent 'but abstained to issue receipt therefor. Learned Judge in chambers, has observed that "the findings of the Appellate Court that the petitioners,' predecessor committed default in the payment of rent from September, 1995 onwards, though not well-discussed, are correct, both on facts and law and require no interference". Learned counsel could not advance any compelling circumstances warranting interference with such findings.
There are two concurrent findings of learned High Court and the Appellate Court going against the petitioners,.
5. We, therefore, find no substance in this petition and dismiss the sam.