SHAUKAT and 2 others vs ALI HUSSAIN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the High Court of Sindh, which ordered the eviction of the petitioners from a commercial property on the grounds of default in rent payment and unauthorized subletting. The core legal question concerns whether concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent and subletting can be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or non-consideration of evidence. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact by the courts below cannot be scrutinized or disturbed in second appeal without showing any material misreading or non-consideration of evidence, and that belatedly tendered money orders do not absolve a tenant from default. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent matters unless a clear misreading or non-consideration of evidence on record is established.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the lower courts in a rent matter?
- Does the tendering of money orders after the statutory period constitute a valid defense against an allegation of default in rent?
- Whether concurrent findings on default and subletting are open to scrutiny in the absence of misreading of evidence?
1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.---The respondent brought application for eviction of petitioners in respect of the property bearing City Survey No, G-3748, Qalandari Muhallah, Par Phuleli Paretabad, Hyderabad against the petitioners alleging default in payment of rent from 1992 till filing of the application which was filed in the month of April, 1995. The second allegation on which application was filed, was that the petitioner No,1 had sublet the shop unauthorisedly to petitioners Nos.2 and 3.
2. ' Both the issues were decided by the Rent Controller against the petitioners and findings have been upheld in appeal by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh. The finding on these issues is one of facts and two Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioners. The finding of fact is, therefore, not open to be scrutinized by this Court in the absence of any misreading or non-consideration of any material piece of evidence on record. Mr. Ghiasuddin, the learned counsel for the petitioners, attempted to argue that the petitioner No,1 is very old tenant and he has never committed default and that the rent for the disputed period was paid but the respondent did not issue any rent receipt for the same. Both the Courts below did not believe the assertion of the petitioners that the rent was paid but no receipt was issued in acknowledgement of the payment of rent and, therefore, this question cannot be examined by us in the second appeal. Even otherwise, there is no evidence on record to show that the rent was paid by the petitioners for the period from 1992 till April, 1995. The money orders on record, through which rent was allegedly remitted, are also of no avail to the petitioners as they were admittedly tendered after default was committed. No case for interference with the judgment of High Court is, therefore, made out. The petition is, accordingly dismissed and leave is refused. However, keeping in view that petitioners are old tenants and are occupying commercial premises, we are inclined to grant one year's time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that during this period, the petitioners will continue to pay or deposit the monthly rent to the respondent regularly and in case they failed to vacate the premises on expiry of one year's time or committed default in payment of rent, they will be evicted therefrom without any further notice and if necessary with police aid.