Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD YASIN Versus ALEEM UD DIN
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the appellate order of the Lahore High Court directing the petitioner's ejectment from tenancy on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal bona fide need, and subletting. The core legal question concerns whether a plea regarding security deposit allegedly available for rent adjustment, which was neither pleaded in the reply nor deposed to during evidence, can be raised before the appellate or apex court. The Supreme Court held that a plea not taken in the reply or supported by evidence cannot be urged in proceedings, and finding no misreading of evidence or illegality in the High Court's reappraisal, dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that matters not pleaded or substantiated by evidence at trial cannot be raised as a ground of challenge in appellate or constitutional proceedings.
- Can a plea regarding a security deposit be raised for the first time in appellate proceedings if it was not pleaded in the reply or supported by evidence?
- Whether the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction can reappraise evidence to reverse a Rent Controller's findings?
- Does the non-payment of rent due to an unpleaded security deposit constitute a valid defense against ejectment?
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal for setting aside the appellate order of the Lahore High Court dated 9-10-1989 whereby he has been ordered to be ejected from his tenancy.
2.Respondent had filed an application against the petitioner for his ejectment on the grounds of default in payment of rent, his own bona fide personal need and petitioner having sublet the premises. It was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantonment vide order dated 27-11-1988. He filed an appeal bearing No.F.A.O. NG, 230 of 1988. The learned Single Judge, after reappraisal of the evidence, found in favour of the respondent on all the three grounds and directed petitioner's ejectment vide order dated 9-10-1989.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition submitted that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000 with the respondent as security, from which the amount of rent could be deducted, and, therefore, there was no question of the petitioner being a defaulter in payment of the rent.
4.The learned appellate High Court has in this behalf observed that "in the reply to the- ejectment petition filed by the respondent, no plea regarding security lying with the appellant was raised nor did the respondent while appearing as his own witness depose anything on this aspect of the matter". Plea not taken in reply nor deposed to can hardly be urged in these proceedings. Entire evidence on record was reappraised by the learned Judge of the High Court in his appellate jurisdiction and he came to adverse findings against the petitioner on all the three issues. No misreading of evidence or any other illegality is pointed out. Therefore, there is no justification for grant of leave to appeal. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Shakurul Salam771 judgments