Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 525

ZAHID MAHMOOD and another vs Mst. IQBAL BEGUM

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 525
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,271-K of 1988
Date1988-10-16
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultLeave to appeal refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against the High Court of Sindh's dismissal of their first rent appeal, which had upheld an eviction order issued on the ground of subletting. The petitioners raised factual controversies regarding the transfer of possession, arguing that physical possession was not transferred and that there was no proof of legal possession being transferred for consideration, such as rent paid by the sub-tenant to the original tenant. The Supreme Court of Pakistan refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the questions raised were essentially issues of fact concluded by unexceptionable concurrent findings of the lower forums. The Court further observed that technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply to rent proceedings before the Rent Controller, justifying the High Court's reliance on the record and high probabilities to resolve the question of subletting.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether strict provisions of the Evidence Act apply to proceedings before the Rent Controller?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding subletting can be re-agitated in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Can a court infer subletting based on material on record and high probabilities in the absence of direct evidence of payment of rent by the sub-tenant?
leave to appealeviction ordersublettingrent proceedingsconcurrent findings of factEvidence Act

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the tenants' side, against the dismissal by the High Court of Sind, of their first rent appeal from an order of eviction passed on ground of subletting.

2. ' Learned counsel has raised factual controversy with regard to the issue relating to transfer of possession by the petitioner No,1 (original tenant) to petitioner No,2 (the sub-tenant). He has taken us through the relevant material on record and has tried to show that the physical possession had not been transferred; And, that in any case, even if it be held that physical possession had been transferred to the sub-tenant, there was no proof that the "legal" possession had been transferred for consideration like the payment of rent by the sub-tenant to the original tenant.

3. Essentially all these questions are of facts. The learned Judge in the High Court after carefully considering the material brought to his notice, has rendered findings, which are unexceptionable.

4. ' The so-called legal point that there was no direct evidence on question of payment of rent by the sub-tenant or the use and possession of the shop by him in his own right, it also stands resolved by the afore-referred findings. It is needless to add that the Evidence Act could not be made applicable in terms, to the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller. The High Court was thus fully justified in relying on the material on record as also on high probabilities.

5. ' After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal it stands concluded by findings of fact. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.

Cited by 5 cases

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