ITTEHAD CHEMICALS LIMITED vs VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI
This petition challenges a High Court judgment that affirmed the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge regarding the fixation of fair rent for commercial premises. The petitioner, a tenant, contested the rent enhancement from Rs. 8,178 to Rs. 80,000 per month, arguing against the valuation and the effective date of the enhancement. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding rent fixation and whether the enhanced rent could be made effective from the date of the application. The Supreme Court held that the controversy was entirely factual and that the lower courts had properly considered the evidence regarding prevailing rents in the vicinity. Consequently, the Court refused to reappraise the evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the lower courts. The Court further held that the enhanced rent was correctly made effective from the date of the application, dismissing the petition and refusing leave to appeal based on the principle that the Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact.
- Does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to reappraise evidence to substitute its own findings for those of the Rent Controller and the appellate court?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding the fixation of fair rent?
- Should an enhancement of rent be effective from the date of the order of the Rent Controller or from the date of the application filed by the landlord?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner impugns the judgment of the High Court dated 15-10- 2009. The petitioner is a tenant of respondent No, 3 in premises which are the subject matter of this litigation. The respondent had applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent through an application dated 1-5-2004. The Rent Controller proceeded to record evidence. Although the respondent had sought enhancement of rent from Rs, 8,178 per month to Rs, 96,000 for the premises, the Rent Controller after considering the evidence fixed the fair rent at Rs, 80,000 vide order dated 4-8-2008. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal which was dismissed by an Addl. District Judge vide order dated 18-10-2008. Being dissatisfied with the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate Court, the petitioner filed CP No,S-548 of 2008 before the High Court.
This petition has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment.
2. The controversy before the Rent Controller and the appellate Court was entirely of a factual nature. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No,3 has adverted to evidence produced by the petitioner itself, which points to the prevailing rent in the vicinity of the premises in question. There is other evidence also which has been fully considered by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge fixing the fair rent at Rs, 80,000. This has been affirmed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment.
3. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. It is not for this Court to embark upon, reappraisal of evidence and substitute its own findings for those of the Rent Controller and the learned Addl. District Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued. That the enhancement of rent should be fixed from the date of the order of the Rent Controller and not from the date of the application filed by the respondent i,e, 1-5-2004. We find no substance in the request. The same is, therefore, declined. Ln the circumstances, we find no justification for interfering in the concurrent judgments of the two Courts as confirmed by the High Courts. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Master IQBAL Versus ANJUMAN JAMA MASJID 2025 PLD 323
- Mst. ADEEBA BEGUM through Authorized Attorney vs TRAVEL CORPORATION 2019 YLR 2765
- HABIB BANK LIMITED vs RAIS AHMED KHAN and 6 others 2017 PLD Sindh 542