PATHAN MOLE vs Moulvi MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court regarding an ejectment application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a tenant, had established grounds for the Supreme Court to interfere with the lower courts' findings that a landlord-tenant relationship existed and that the tenant had committed default in the payment of rent. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner had admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and that the lower courts had correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the default in rent payment. Consequently, the Court held that there was no justification for interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below. Furthermore, given that the litigation had persisted for eight years, the Court declined the petitioner's request for additional time to vacate the premises, emphasizing the lack of merit in the petition and the unjustified nature of the delay caused by the tenant.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller, Appellate Court, and High Court regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Is a tenant entitled to additional time to vacate premises after defaulting on rent payments in litigation spanning several years?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- The judgment of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 14-12- 2007 has been assailed through this petition for leave to appeal. The ejectment application filed by the respondent was allowed by learned Rent Controller on the ground that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the opponent has committed default in payment of rent. The appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed. The constitutional petition filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the Courts below also met with the same fate, hence this petition.
2. The perusal of the judgment reveals that the petitioner has admitted that Madressah Mazharul Uloom Association, viz: respondent No,1, was the landlord while petitioner was the tenant of the demised premises. Learned Rent Controller after discussing evidence on record concluded that the petitioner has defaulted in payment of rent. The above findings were affirmed by the Appellate Court and the High Court declined to take a different view.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard for quite some time. He had to concede that the petitioner has no case for interference by this Court. He, however, prayed for grant of some time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. We find from the record that the rent proceedings commenced in the year 2000 and that the petitioner has entangled respondent No,1/landlord in litigation for almost eight years.
4. In the given circumstances, there is no reasonable justification for grant of further time to the petitioner. The request made on behalf of the petitioner being unjustified is, therefore, declined. The petition is accordingly dismissed and .