Ch. RUSTAM ALI vs Mst. JAMILA AKHTAR
The respondent landlady filed an ejectment application against the petitioner tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, and the High Court dismissed the tenant's first appeal. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that an advance deposit and adjustment towards whitewash and painting expenses negated the default. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to raise the plea of the receipt in his written statement, affidavit, or cross-examination, and that the plea of adjustment for repair expenses was legally untenable without obtaining prior permission under the relevant statute. The concurrent findings of fact regarding default by the lower courts were based on evidence and warranted no interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that concurrent findings of fact on default based on evidence cannot be disturbed, and that repair expense adjustments require statutory permission.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact on the question of default in rent can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Is a tenant entitled to claim adjustment of rent on account of repair expenses without obtaining permission under section 12 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Section 12, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. S.A.NUSRAT, J.--The respondent landlady filed an application of the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed premises on the ground of default in payment of rent from 15-2-1979 to 15-5- 1979. An issue in this regard was framed and the learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties ordered ejectment of the petitioner by his order, dated 21-7-1982. The petitioner's first appeal against the said order was dismissed by the High Court as per impugned judgment, which is the subject-matter of this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that an amount of Rs.500 was paid to the respondent under a receipt, dated 17-3-1971 as deposit for one month along with a sum of Rs. 3,000 towards advance rent, and upon adjustment of the amount of deposit the case of default for three months was not made out. The petitioner raised no such plea either in his written statement, in his affidavit or in the cross-examination nor it was shown that either the respondent or her attorney was confronted with the said receipt. It was alleged by the petitioner that he had paid a sum of Rs. 3,000 to one Nadir Khan at the instance of the respondent's attorney for carrying out work of white--wash and painting in the disputed premises and adjustment of the same alone was claimed against the rent.
3. The learned to Courts on consider--ing the evidence brought on the record did not accept this plea. It was further held by the learned High Court that in any case the plea of adjustment on account of expense, if any, incurred on repairs was not tenable for want of permission obtained by the petitioner as required under section 12 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The concurrent findings of the learned to Courts on the question of default are based on evidence and are findings of fact. No question of law worth consideration arises in this petition, which is dismissed accordingly.
Cited by 2 cases
- NAZAKAT ABBAS and 20 others vs PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2006 PLC (C.S.) 221
- SHAHNAWAZ FARIDI vs SIRAJUL MASJID 1991 MLD 2568