Messrs BATA SHOE COMPANY And 2 Others vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD SIDDIOU1
The petitioners, who were tenants facing ejectment, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing their first appeal under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act. The respondents had purchased the property in 1981, and subsequently sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment, personal need, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, and the High Court maintained the order. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had committed default in the payment of rent and whether sufficient ground existed to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower forums. The Supreme Court examined the record and found no evidence supporting the petitioners' claim that rent had been tendered and refused. Furthermore, the court held that having voluntarily closed their evidence, the petitioners could not claim a right to reopen the case for producing further witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding default cannot be interfered with without substantiating evidence.
- Can a tenant claim absence of default when there is no documentary or oral evidence on record showing that rent was tendered and refused?
- Whether a party who has voluntarily closed its evidence is entitled to reopen the case for producing additional witnesses as a matter of right?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding default in rent payment without substantiating proof?
- Cantonments Rent Restriction Act
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioners, tenants under orders of ejectment, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 14-1-1989 whereby their first appeal filed by them under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act was dismissed.
2. The respondents claimed to have purchased the portion of a property which contained the tenement occupied by the petitioners. The purchase of the respondents was upheld by a decree of the Civil Court. This happened in 1981. In 1984, the respondents served a notice demanding rent at the rate of Rs.500 per month from the date of their purchase and also alleged damage to the property and their personal need. The suit was contested on numerous grounds. The Cantonments Rent Controller ordered the eviction on the ground of default, personal need and damage to the property. The High Court has declined to interfere with that order.
3. Sardar Akhtar Ali Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended before us that the rent prior to the notice had been paid to the previous owner and after the notice, rent was tendered to the respondents but was not accepted by them. There was in other words no default at all.
4. After hearing the learned counsel it appears the Court had already ordered the production of the record of the Rent Controller for ascertaining the facts. The records have been received and examined. No document exists on the record to sustain the claim that rent was tendered by money order and was refused. As a matter of fact, we find that Syed Muhammad Saaqlain, who remained in the premises on behalf of the petitioners from 1964 to 1986 appeared as a witness and made no mention of having tendered or having sent the rent. In the circumstances, there was no occasion to interfere with that finding.
5. It is also contended that though the learned counsel had inadvertently closed the evidence, an opportunity was sought for producing a witness who could prove that the rent had been tendered but the permission was not granted. The petitioners' counsel had himself closed the evidence and after having done so, there was no occasion for reopening the case as such.
6. We find no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Abdul Majid through Attorney Muhammad Azhar vs Anjum Akhtar 2024 LHC 1676, 2024 CLC 1727
- Muhammad Ayub etc vs Nazeer Mai etc 2017 LHC 4412
- QAISER JAVED MALIK vs PERVAIZ HAMEED and 2 others 2009 MLD 350