HASSAN ALI vs ABDUL MALIK
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court which allowed the landlord's appeal and ordered the tenant's eviction from the demised premises on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of evidence by the High Court regarding the alleged default in rent payment from April to September 1974 and whether the tenant's plea of lump sum payment and subsequent money order warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the arguments advanced by the petitioner merely sought a reappraisal of evidence, and since the High Court's appreciation of evidence was rooted in the record, no interference was justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the eviction order.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent or appellate appreciation of evidence by the High Court when it is rooted in the record?
- Does a plea regarding the mode of rent payment amounting to a request for reappraisal of evidence justify interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 5-5-1985, allowing an appeal filed by the respondent /landlord against the order of the Rent Controller by which respondent's application for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises was dismissed. As a result of the impugned judgment the High Court directed petitioner's viction from the demise premises.
2. Respondent applied to the Rent Controller for petitioner's eviction on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent from April to September, 1974. Petitioner denied this allegation, and asserted that respondent as a practice used to collect rent in a lump sum. With regard to specific allegation of default in payment of rent from April to September, 1974 petitioner asserted that in the first week of June, 1974, he had paid rent for the month of May and advance rent for June to August, 1974, but respondent did not issue any receipt to him. Admitted position is that petitioner also sent money order on 5-9-1974, for Rs.225 covering rent for aforesaid five months. The Rent Controller accepted the version of the petitioner and rejected respondent's application, but on appeal learned Judge in the High' Court reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal as stated earlier.
3. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition really amount to a request for the reappraisal of evidence. Since the appreciation of evidence made by the High Court is rooted in evidence on record, interference by this Court could not be justified.
4. There is, therefore, no merit in the pleas raised by the learned counsel. The petition is accordingly dismissed.