Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 1670

USMA NASSER And 4 Others vs ZAITOON KHATOON

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 1670
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 551-K of 1985 F.R.A. No. 380 of 1982
Date1986-01-20
Judge(s)Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat
Authored byAbdul Kadir Shaikh
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the Rent Controller's order directing the petitioners to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord. The core legal question before the court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding default in the payment of rent were sustainable in law. The Supreme Court held that no exception in law could be taken against the concurrent findings of the two courts below establishing that the petitioners were indeed defaulters in rent payment. Consequently, the court established the principle that concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding rent default, based on recorded evidence, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless a legal exception is made out. The petition was accordingly dismissed as being without merit.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default made by the Rent Controller and the High Court?
  • Does an order directing the handover of vacant possession for rent default warrant leave to appeal when concurrent findings exist?
petition for leave to appealdefault in payment of rentdemised premisesrent controllerconcurrent findingseviction

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 10-9-1985 dismissing petitioner's appeal and thereby upholding order of the Rent Controller by which he was directed to handover vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord. Learned Rent Controller passed that order on being satisfied from the evidence recorded in the case that the petitioners were defaulter in payment of rent.

2. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner we find that no exception in law can be taken against the concurrent findings of the two Courts that the petitioners were defaulter in payment of rent as alleged by the respondent-landlord. This 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.