MUHAMMAD SABIR vs Syed MUSHARRAF ALI
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which reversed the Rent Controller's decision and ordered the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of the landlord's personal need. The Rent Controller had initially dismissed the landlord's application, finding the claim of personal need and bona fides unsubstantiated. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the tenant filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, presenting documents suggesting the landlord had acquired alternative accommodation. The High Court dismissed this application without issuing notice to the landlord, reasoning that the documents lacked evidentiary value and no request was made to summon additional evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the High Court's refusal to consider the tenant's application or issue notice to the landlord regarding the new developments was potentially overly technical. The Court emphasized that in rent control proceedings, such procedural rigidity might be unjustified, especially when a judgment of variance is recorded for the first time on appeal.
- Can an appellate court in rent control proceedings dismiss an application regarding new evidence without issuing notice to the opposing party?
- Is it appropriate for an appellate court to adopt a strictly technical approach to procedural applications in rent control cases where a judgment of variance is being considered?
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, tenant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of variance recorded by the High Court of Sindh on 25-4-1988 upholding the personal need of the landlord and directing the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises.
2. ' The Rent Controller was not satisfied either with the bona fides or with the personal need of the landlord respondent and had, therefore, refused to order ejectment of the petitioner from the residential premises occupied by him. While the appeal of the landlord was pending in the High Court, an application was filed by the petitioner drawing the attention of the appellate authority to certain events and factors which materially affected the respondent-landlord's entitlement to seek his eviction on the ground of personal need. This application, it appears, was not attended to as no notice of it was sent to the respondent landlord and the High Court in its judgment noted it, observing as follows:-- "Now I come to an application filed during the pendency of appeal by respondent. This application was made by the respondent on 17-1-1988 i.e, 4 years after the First Rent Appeal was filed and this application is under section 151, C.P.C. And no request had been made in the application to summon any additional evidence so as to prove the genuineness of the documents or to come to the conclusion that his house where the appellant was originally residing has been mutated in the name of the appellant. Therefore, these two photo copies of the documents have no evidentiary value, and no inference can be taken against the appellant that he has sufficient accommodation."
3. It has been contended that a too technical view of the Matter has been taken which was not justified in rent control proceedings and at least notice should have been served on the respondent-landlord to meet the averments made.
4. ' We find that the submissions made too require further examination as the landlord had failed before the Rent Controller and a judgment of variance was recorded for the first time by the impugned order. Leave to appeal is hereby granted. Security in the sum of Rs,2,500. Status quo with regard to possession would be maintained. The petitioner shall continue depositing the monthly rent with the Rent Controller as required under the law.