MUHAMMAD SULEMAN SULFI vs Mst. AZRA SHAMIM
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order passed against a tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The petitioner challenged the eviction, primarily contending that the Rent Controller had unjustifiedly closed his evidence and that the High Court failed to provide sufficient opportunity for a hearing. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the factual findings regarding the default were erroneous. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had been afforded fair and sufficient opportunities to substantiate his pleas before the lower forums. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to present any additional material he allegedly wished to submit when given the opportunity during the proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification for interfering with the High Court's judgment, which had correctly upheld the eviction order based on the established default. The petition was dismissed both on the grounds of being time-barred and on its merits, with leave to appeal refused.
- Is an eviction order based on default in rent payment sustainable when the tenant was afforded sufficient opportunity to present evidence?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred?
- Does the closure of evidence by a Rent Controller constitute a valid ground for interference if the party was given fair opportunity?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- This petition is time barred and is accordingly liable to be dismissed as barred by time. However, we have heard A the learned counsel on merits also.
2. ' The petitioner/tenant has been ordered to be evicted on ground of default in payment of rent. His first rent appeal having been dismissed by the Controller he has sought leave to appeal.
3. ' Grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. One, that petitioner's evidence was closed by the learned Rent Controller without sufficient justification. Secondly, that the High Court also did not afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; and lastly, that the findings of fact against the petitioner on the basis of material placed by the parties on record, are erroneous.
4. We on having perused the order-sheet, the reasons for closing the petitioner's case and the observations of the High Court with regard to conduct of the case from the petitioner's side, are satisfied that he was afforded enough and fair opportunity of substantiating his pleas. On merits also we agree with the High Court that the petitioner was liable to be evicted on ground of default in payment of rent. It may be mentioned here that when asked whether the petitioner would like to place before this Court any material which he might have desired to place before the learned Rent Controller and was unable to do, the learned counsel did not evince any interest in availing of this opportunity.
5. ' After hearing the learned counsel at some length on all relevant aspects of the case we do not find any justification, for interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.