SHAMSHAD BEGUM vs Mst. HUMA BEGUM and others
This petition arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court dismissing the petitioner tenant's constitutional petition against concurrent findings of fact in an ejectment matter. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent payment and the ex parte proceedings against the tenant by the Rent Controller warranted interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the tenant was rightly proceeded against ex parte after failing to file a written statement despite multiple adjournments, and that subsequent deposits of rent could not wash off the default already incurred. The Court concluded that the High Court committed no error of law or jurisdiction in declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, thereby laying down the principle that a tenant who fails to contest the eviction proceedings or file a written statement after seeking ample opportunities cannot challenge concurrent findings of default, and deposit of rent after the eviction order does not cure the prior default.
- Whether a tenant can challenge concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default after failing to file a written statement before the Rent Controller?
- Does the deposit of rent in a miscellaneous case after the passing of an eviction order wash off the default already incurred?
- When can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact arising out of an ejectment case in its constitutional jurisdiction?
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner is aggrieved by Sindh High Court judgment, dated 15-9-2006 whereby her constitutional petition, calling in question concurrent findings of fact arising out of ejectment case, was dismissed.
2. Petitioner is tenant of respondent No,1 in respect of the demised premises. Her ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent with effect from 1-9-1999. Ground of subletting was also mentioned in the eviction application but it does not appear to have been pressed into service. After service of notice, respondent appeared before the Rent Controller and sought adjournment to file a written statement. She was accommodated thrice and more than reasonable time was afforded to her but no written statement was filed. Resultantly, eviction plea was allowed by the Controller vide order, dated 10-9-2001. Her appeal before an Additional District Judge failed whereafter she invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but without any success, hence this petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocateon-Record for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment and the entire record. Learned counsel is unable to point out any misreading of record, misconstruction of evidence or non-reading of any material piece of evidence as well as error of jurisdiction. Since the petitioner-tenant did not plead her case before the forums below, in our view, she was rightly proceeded ex parte, to which no exception at law can be taken. After seeking adjournments from the Rent Controller, it was incumbent upon her to contest the rent case, explain her view point and to substantiate that there was no default on her part. Even if she has deposited some amount of rent in miscellaneous rent case instituted by her, the finding of fact is that it was done much after the order of eviction was passed against her, which would not wash off the default and liability already incurred.
4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, High Court neither acted illegally nor without jurisdiction in declining to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction in interfering with concurrent findings of fact rather acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction and according to law.
5. Resultantly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petitioner shall vacate the premises within 30 days from today.
Cited by 4 cases
- Iftikhar Ali and others vs Riaz-ul-Haq alias Riaz Ahmed and others 2023 YLR 854
- Noor-un-Nisa etc vs United Bank Limited etc 2021 PLD Lahore 90, 2020 LHC 2254
- Tanveer Siddiqui and another vs Muhammad Rashid 2010 C.L.R. 1178
- TANVEER SIDDIQUI Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID 2010 YLR 1851