MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Lahore High Court, which ordered his ejectment from a shop and a residential flat. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant had committed default in the payment of rent and whether the unauthorized conversion and subletting of the residential premises justified eviction. The Rent Controller found that the tenant failed to pay the agreed rent and breached the terms of the tenancy, leading to eviction orders. The High Court upheld these findings, noting the tenant's failure to prove payment or obtain court permission to deposit rent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the matter was concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The Court affirmed that where a tenant fails to pay rent as agreed and fails to produce evidence of payment or valid deposit, the finding of default is legally sound. The judgment reinforces the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, absent legal defects, are generally not disturbed in appellate jurisdiction.
- Does a tenant's failure to produce evidence of rent payment or court-authorized deposit constitute default justifying ejectment?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in rent control matters?
- Does the unauthorized conversion of a residential flat into an office and subsequent subletting constitute valid grounds for eviction?
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---The dispute in the above-mentioned petitions for special leave to appeal relates to ejectment applications filed by the landlady Mst. Sardar Begum, wife of Mr. G.M. Dar against her tenant Mr. Muhammad Zaman petitioner in both the petitions and Mr. S. Irfan Malik petitioner No, 2 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 489-R of 1989, from Shop No, 17/37 known as Ideal Shopping Centre, near Aslam Market, Wah Cantt. In Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 488-R of 1989 and from a Flat in property No, 17/37 Civic Centre Wah Cantt. In Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 489-R of 1989.
2. ' It was alleged that the property in dispute of the former petition was initially rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs, 170 vide agreement dated 16-4-1970. On 2-11-1970 the petitioner agreed in writing in the Court of the District Judge to pay the rent of the said shop according to the assessm ent of the property carried out by the Cantonment Board. Mst. Sardar Begum respondent accordingly claimed the rent of the shop as Rs, 450 p.m. With effect from 1-7-1981 which was refused by the petitioner and thus committed the default in payment of rent. As regards the latter petition it was alleged by the respondent Mst. Sardar Begum that the flat in dispute was rented out to petitioner No, 1 at a monthly rent of Rs, 230 p.m. For the purpose of his residence but he converted part of the said flat into an office and sublet the same to petitioner No,
2. It was also alleged by the respondent that the rent of the disputed flat was not paid by the petitioner No, 1 for the period from July to October, 1980.
3. ' Both the Rent Applications were contested by the parties. The learned Rent Controller after framing the issues on the pleadings of the parties and thereafter recording the evidence accepted both the applications of respondent and vide his order dated 26-12-1985 the petitioners in both the petitions were ordered to vacate the shop within one month and hand over the vacant possession to respondent and also to vacate the flat within two months from the date of the announcement of the said order. The petitioners filed two separate appeals against the said orders in the Lahore High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court vide his orders dated 27-5-1989 dismissed both the appeals and extended the period of vacation to hand over vacant possession to the respondent in both the petitions to further three months from the said judgments. Hence these two petitions for leave to appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the findings of the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to argue the factual side of the case.
5. After hearing him on this point we find that there is no substance in his arguments as the matter involved in these petitions stands concluded on concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below.
6. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has thoroughly discussed the merits of the case in his findings which in our opinion suffer from no legal or otherwise defects. As the agreement in writing in the Court is negated by the conduct of the petitioner No, 1 in these petitions when he failed to pay the agreed rent, the nonpayment of which has clearly proved the default committed on his part. The record of the case does not show any entry of the Post Office that the respondent has refused to accept the amount of rent for the months of September and October, 1980 sent by money order. The petitioners neither produced any receipt of payment of rent for the months of July and August, 1980 nor any permission from the Court of Rent Controller to deposit the rent in the Court.
7. ' Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in these two petitions which, accordingly, are dismissed.