Syed TAUSIF AHMED ZAIDI vs Mst. NAHEEDA NIGHAT
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a rent dispute where the Rent Controller initially dismissed the respondent's eviction application, finding no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Additional District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, concluding that the respondent was the owner and the petitioner was indeed her tenant, a finding subsequently upheld by the High Court upon a second appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of the evidence regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower appellate court and the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence. The Court emphasized that documentary evidence, specifically a document executed by the respondent to facilitate the petitioner's issuance of a ration card as a tenant, conclusively established the relationship. The principle laid down is that where documentary evidence, such as a document used by a tenant to obtain official benefits, corroborates the landlord's claim, it serves as cogent proof of the tenancy relationship in the absence of rebuttal evidence.
- Does a document executed by a landlord to facilitate a tenant's ration card issuance constitute sufficient proof of a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Can a High Court in second appeal uphold a finding of fact regarding a tenancy relationship based on an independent reappraisal of evidence?
- Is the absence of rebuttal evidence by a tenant significant when the landlord has produced cogent documentary proof of the tenancy?
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Facts of this case briefly stated are that the Rent Controller, Karachi dismissed respondent's application for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that respondent had failed to prove that there existed relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. On respondent's appeal., Additional District Judge, Karachi reversed the finding of the Rent Controller, holding that it was cogently proved from the oral and documentary evidence recorded in the case that respondent was owner of the premises in question and petitioner's occupation thereof was that of her tenant. Petitioner challenged the judgment of the First Appellate Court in a second appeal before Sind High Court, but it was dismissed as the learned Judge in the High Court who dealt with the case, on independent reappraisal of the evidence upheld the finding of the Additional District Judge. It is in these circumstances that petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
2. Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Advocate-on-Record appearing in support of the petition submits that the High Court has erred in not appreciating the plea that there exists no reliable evidence to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
3. After having gone through the record of the case, we find no substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel, for, apart from' the oral evidence, a cogent documentary evidence was produced by the' respondent, particularly document exhibited as A-2 executed by, respondent in petitioner's favour for issue of a ration card to him as being the tenant of the premises in question. Mr. Faizanul Haq admits at the bar that a ration card for petitioner's family was issued on the basis of this document. Obviously, therefore, petitioner utilized this document taking advantage of the fact that he was petitioner's tenant in respect of the premises. The First Appellate Court as well as the High Court have rightly held that in the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner in rebuttal, respondent had successfully established that she was the owner of the demised premises and the petitioner was her tenant.
4. There is, therefore, no merit in the plea raised by the learned counsel. The petition is accordingly dismissed.