SHAFQAT NASREEN vs AMIR FATIMA
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Sind High Court upholding the ejectment order passed against the petitioner-tenant. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine the respondent-landlord and lead evidence, rendering her case undefended. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was unexceptionable as the record demonstrated that the Rent Controller had granted multiple opportunities to the petitioner for cross-examination and evidence, which she failed to avail. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where a party fails to avail of repeated opportunities granted by the trial forum to lead evidence or conduct cross-examination, a grievance of being condemned unheard or left undefended is legally untenable.
- Whether a tenant can claim denial of a fair hearing when multiple opportunities to cross-examine the landlord and lead evidence were provided but not availed?
- Is an ejectment order passed after concurrent findings regarding default in rent and personal requirement liable to interference when procedural defaults are attributable to the tenant?
ORDER
1. ' S. A. NUSR AT, J.-This petition for leave to appeal has been brought to challenge the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 13-11-1983 which was passed in the background of the following facts, ' The petitioner has been a tenant of the respondent in a half portion of a house bearing No. 1/650, Liaquatabad, Karachi, on a monthly rent of Rs, 100 since, 1971. The respondent applied for the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed premises in the Court of the Rent Controller, Karachi, on the ground of default in payment of rent since July 1979, and requirement of the premises for herself use and occupation. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 8-8-1983 on both the grounds and the petitioner's first rent appeal against the said order was dismissed by the High Court as per impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave.
2. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent nor she was allowed to file her affidavit in evidence with the result that her case remained undefended. This contention was raised before the learned High Court and on the basis of the record it was found that the Rent Controller had shown great indulgence in the matter to the petitioner but in spite of several opportunities given to her, first to cross-examine the respondent and then to lead her own evidence, she had failed to avail of the same. The learned Rent Controller in his order has given the details of the proceedings right from the filing of the written statement until the date of announcement of the judgment on 8-8-1983 which the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to controvert.
3. ' The judgment of the learned High Court, in the circumstances, is unexceptionable.
4. ' The petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly.