Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 1642 (1)

KHUDA BUX And Others vs GHULAM NABI Through Legal Representatives

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 1642 (1)
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 26-K of 1986 F.R.A. No. 9 of 1984
Date1986-06-01
Judge(s)Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Abdul Qadir Sheikh
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 10-11-1985, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal and upheld the Rent Controller's order directing their eviction from the demised premises on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question revolves around whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the default in rent payment by the courts below were sustainable in law. The Supreme Court held that no exception in law could be taken against the concurrent factual findings of the two courts below establishing that the petitioners were indeed defaulters in payment of rent, thereby incurring liability for ejectment. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent payment, supported by evidence, warrant no interference in a petition for leave to appeal, leading to the dismissal of the petition on its merits.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent payment be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Does default in payment of rent incur the liability of ejectment under the law?
leave to appealevictiondefault in payment of rentrent controllerconcurrent findings of fact

ORDER

1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court, dated 10-11-1985 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioners and thereby upholding the order passed by the Rent Controller directing petitioners' eviction from the demised premises on the ground that they were defaulters in payment of rent.

2. After having heard the learned counsel in support of the petition we find that no exception in law can be taken against the findings of the facts reached by the two Courts below that the petitioners were defaulters in payment of rent and thus incurred the liability of ejectment under the law.

3. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.