DILLAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs Mst. RAZIA SULTANA
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had upheld a Rent Controller's order directing the petitioner's eviction from the demised premises. The Rent Controller had ordered eviction based on findings that the respondent-landlady required the premises for her personal use and that the petitioner was a defaulter in the payment of rent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's findings, which were based on the evidence recorded in the case, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the arguments presented by the petitioner essentially amounted to a request for the re-appraisal of evidence, which is not permissible in such proceedings. Furthermore, the Court determined that the findings of the High Court were firmly rooted in the evidence on record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on evidence unless a misreading or non-reading of evidence is demonstrated.
- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order?
- Does a finding of fact by the High Court based on evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 24-11-1985 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and thereby upholding order of the Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises. Learned Rent Controller passed that order on being satisfied from the evidence recorded in the case that the respondent-landlady required the premises for her personal use and the petitioner was also defaulter in payment of rent.
2. The arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner rarely amount to a request for re-appraisal. Of the evidence which obviously cannot be granted. Even otherwise, the findings of the High Court being rooted in the evidence recorded in the case do not call for interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.