MUHAMMAD AHMED vs Mst. AZIZ BEGUM
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the Sind High Court, which ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment. The respondent-landlady had sought eviction, alleging the petitioner failed to pay rent from June 1965 onwards, alongside outstanding arrears. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the lower courts erred in their factual findings regarding the default and whether the petitioner could introduce a new plea of 'waiver' regarding the payment of rent at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts provided cogent reasons for their findings on the default. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the plea of waiver, not having been raised before the High Court or the courts below, could not be entertained for the first time before the Supreme Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not permit the introduction of new factual pleas that were not agitated in the lower forums.
- Can a plea of waiver regarding rent payment be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not agitated in the lower courts?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding rent default subject to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Facts of this case briefly stated are that on 13-7-1967 respondent- landlady applied for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent from June, 1965 onwards, besides not having paid Rs.1700 for the period previous to May, 1965. On the basis of the 1985 Abdul Ghaffar Qureshi v. Federation of Pakistan (Abdul Kadir Shaikh , J evidence produced by the parties, the Rent Controller held the petitions guilty as a defaulter and directed his eviction from the premises b the order dated 19-11- 1974. Petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed by District Judge, Tharparkar, and a second appeal filed by him in Sind High Court also met with the same fate. He now seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
2. Mr. Naseem Farooqui learned counsel appearing in support of the petition for leave to appeal submits that the High Court has failed to appreciate that respondent-landlady used to collect rent periodical and the arrears in payment of rent were due to the fact that the landlady failed to collect the same. Learned counsel further pleaded in this behalf that petitioner's obligation to pay rent in advance stop waived by above practice and waiver on her part. We find that the first plea raised by the learned counsel has been rejected by the High Court and the Courts below for cogent r seasons. The second point regarding "waiver" on the part of the landlady was not even place before the High Court or any of the Courts below, and it is, therefore not open to petitioner to raise it for the first the before this Court.
3. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- PAKCOM LIMITED and others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others 2011 PLD Supreme Court 44