GOVERNMENT OF N.W.FP. through Secretary, Food Department, Peshawar
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for recovery of damages filed by the respondents against the petitioners, the Government of N.W.F.P., following a fire that destroyed a rented bungalow. The respondents alleged that the petitioners, as tenants, failed to maintain the property properly, leading to the fire and subsequent damage. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 1,92,000, a decision upheld by the High Court. The evidence indicated that the petitioners had failed to vacate the premises following an eviction order, and a Bailiff's report confirmed the building was damaged while in the petitioners' possession. The petitioners' own witness admitted the fire occurred but could not identify the cause. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts had correctly appraised the evidence regarding the petitioners' negligence. Finding that the lower courts had appraised the evidence in its true perspective and that no substantial point of law was raised, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that re-appraisal of evidence is not permissible in such proceedings.
- Is the re-appraisal of evidence permissible in a petition for leave to appeal where the lower courts have already appraised the evidence?
- Does a tenant's failure to vacate premises after an eviction order, resulting in damage to the property, establish liability for damages?
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 26-5-1992 seeking leave to appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents brought a suit for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs,4,83,600 against the petitioners on the allegation that the bungalow which was on rent with the petitioners, had been totally burnt. The petitioners had not looked after the bungalow properly and for the negligent act of the petitioners, the bungalow caught fire, therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay the amount of damages. The suit was resisted by the petitioners. The learned trial Judge granted a decree for Rs,1,92,000 against the petitioners. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the High Court by means of impugned judgment. The petitioners were tenants in the bungalow in question and an order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller and that order was maintained by the Appellate Court. The petitioners did not hand over the possession to the respondents. They had to file execution proceedings on 15-4-1978 and according to the report of the Bailiff the bungalow was damaged and the building was burnt due to the negligence of the petitioners. D.W.1 appeared on behalf of the petitioners and admitted that the building caught fire but it was not known as to who had set the building on fire. The two Courts have appraised the evidence in true perspective. Re-appraisal of evidence is not called for on any ground.
3. No point of law is involved in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.