MUHAMMAD ASLAM QURESHI vs Mrs. MOEENA HIDAYATULLAH and another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court. The core legal question raised is whether the High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, can legally interfere with and upset final findings of fact rendered by the rent forums under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 without lawful justification. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the contentions merit detailed examination and consequently suspended the operation of the impugned High Court judgment, while directing notice for the next session. The key principle highlighted relates to the finality of factual determinations made by specialized rent tribunals and the limited scope of constitutional interference by the High Court.
- Can the High Court set aside concurrent findings of fact of rent forums in proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Are the Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court the final authorities on findings of fact under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Section 21, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---Learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that in so far as findings of fact in rent case are concerned, Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court in terms of section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 are the final authorities to record such findings, which are not open to question before the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution, but, contrary to it, in the instant case, concurrent findings of the two Courts below have been up set by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, that too without any plausible and, lawful justification for doing so. In order to fortify his submission as regards this legal position, he has placed reliance upon the case of Shakeel Ahmed v. Muhammad Tariq Farogh (2010 SCM R 1925).
2. To examine the above and other contentions raised in this petition, leave to appeal is granted.
C.M.A. 330-K of 2011
3. Notice for a date to be fixed in the next Session. Till then, operation of the impugned judgment shall remain suspended.