NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Balochistan High Court, which had upheld an eviction order issued by a Rent Controller against the petitioner. The core legal dispute involved the petitioner's denial of the landlord-tenant relationship and allegations of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had found that the petitioner was indeed a tenant, that the denial of this relationship was false and contemptuous, and that the petitioner had failed to pay rent, thereby justifying eviction. Upon appeal, the High Court reappraised the evidence and affirmed the Rent Controller's findings. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the record and the arguments presented, found that the lower courts had already thoroughly examined and rejected the petitioner's pleas for valid reasons. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no merit in the petition and dismissed it, thereby vacating the interim stay order previously granted. The judgment affirms the finality of concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding tenancy and default when supported by evidence.
- Can a tenant be evicted for default in rent payment if the landlord-tenant relationship is established?
- Is a denial of the landlord-tenant relationship by a tenant considered a ground for eviction when proven false?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding tenancy and rent default?
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of learned Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court dated 25-4-1988 by which an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller directing his eviction from the demised premises was upheld.
2. ' Facts of the case briefly stated are that on 17-8-1981 respondent filed an application for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent and also that he bona fide requires the premises for his personal use. Respondent contested these allegations and also denied relationship of landlord and tenant between him and petitioner. On the basis of evidence produced by the parties, the Rent Controller held that petitioner was the tenant of respondent and his denial of this relationship was false and contemptuous, and in view of the admitted position that he had failed to pay any rent to respondent he was liable to eviction. On this view of the case, learned Rent Controller directed petitioner's eviction by the order dated 31-8-1987.
3. ' On reappraisal of the evidence recorded in the case learned Chief Justice of the High Court also took the same view as prevailed with the learned Rent Controller and he accordingly dismissed petitioner's appeal by the impugned judgment.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the record of the case, we find that all the pleas raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition have already been examined by the Courts below and rejected for cogent and valid reasons. There is therefore no force in this petition it is accordingly dismissed.
5. ' With the dismissal of the petition, the interim order of this Court dated 7-7-1988 stands vacated.