UBAIDULLAH vs SHER MUHAMMAD
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioner-tenant's second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the ejectment order granted by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question is whether the Rent Controller failed to provide the petitioner with an adequate opportunity to prove that he was not a defaulter and that the landlord had refused to accept the rent. The Supreme Court held that the record clearly demonstrated that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to produce evidence and defend his case, yet failed to substantiate his claims or deny non-payment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming the principle that procedural fairness is satisfied when a party is given adequate opportunity to present evidence and is not prejudiced by the proceedings.
- Whether a tenant can claim denial of opportunity to prove rent payment when the record shows sufficient opportunity was granted?
- Does the failure of a tenant to deny non-payment of rent or produce evidence of tender justify an order of ejectment?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-Facts shortly, stated are that ejectment application filed by the respondent against the petitioner, his tenant, on the ground of default in payment of rents was granted by the Rent Controller; petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Gujranwala and his second appeal in Lahore High Court also met with the same fate, and he now seeks special leave to appeal.
2. The only point advanced in support of the petition is that the Rent Controller did not grant any opportunity to the petitioner to prove that he was not a defaulter in the payment of rents in that the landlord had himself refused to accept the rents.
3. This point has been thoroughly examined by the learned Single Judge in the High Court and has been rejected for reasons which may be re--produced hereunder: - "Moreover, I have also examined the order-sheet and proceedings. It cannot be said that the appellant has been prejudiced in any manner by the procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller. After framing of the first two issues, the landlord examined two witnesses including him self. Then Issue No. 3 was framed whereafter a state-- went was made on behalf of the landlord that he did not want to produce any more evidence on the third issue arid further that statement made by him earlier to the framing thereof would be relied upon by him. In the earlier statement he had made an allegation that the appellant had failed to pay or tender rent. In other words, he reiterated the same position qua rent after the framing of the third issue. This happened on 2-5- 1968. The appellant was examined on 14-6-1968. He did not deny the assertion made by the respondent qua non-payment of rent However, he did not produce any other evidence to show that he had tendered the same if the respondent had refused receiving it, nor he produced any evidence to show that in fact the respondent did refuse the receipt of rent. He closed hi evidence on 14-6-1968. These proceedings show that the appellant had sufficient opportunity of producing evidence with regard to the alleged payment of rent."
4. After these observations, there is hardly anything left for us to add in order to show that the point raised in support of the petition has no merit at all.
5. This petition is dismissed in limine.