MUHAMMAD AMIN BHATTI through Attorney vs TAHIR SHEIKHA
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order passed against a tenant by the Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Sindh. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the tenant's default in rent payment were vitiated by misreading or non-reading of evidence. The petitioner argued that the landlord's rent collector failed to collect rent, asserting a practice of lump-sum payments. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on a proper appraisal of the evidence. The Court determined that there was no refusal by the landlord to accept rent, nor was there a consistent practice of lump-sum payments established. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the failure to pay rent in accordance with statutory requirements constituted willful default. Finding no legal infirmity or misreading of evidence, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, dismissing the petition while granting the tenant a six-month period to vacate the premises subject to payment of outstanding dues.
- Does the failure to pay rent in accordance with statutory requirements constitute willful default?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is a tenant's claim of a 'practice of lump-sum payment' sufficient to excuse a failure to pay rent when the landlord has not refused payment?
ORDER
1. ' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This is a civil petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11-10- 1999 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh in F.R.A. No,16 of 1995 whereby order of eviction passed by Rent Controller in Rent Case No,872 of 1992 (Tahir Sheikha v. Muhammad Amin Bhatti and another) was maintained.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed Eviction Application No,872 of 1992 against the petitioner/tenant for latter's ejectment from premises bearing No,III-A, Plot No,28, SR-10, situated at Old Essajee Ebrahimjee Building, Bellasis Street, Serai Quarters, Karachi, on the grounds of default in payment of rent from 1-1-1984 and subletting. The Rent Controller, after recording of evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, held that the petitioner/tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent and ordered his eviction. The petitioner/tenant preferred an appeal before the Sindh High Court at Karachi, which was dismissed after hearing and finding of Rent Controller was upheld.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been misreading and non-reading of the evidence by the two Courts below which has resulted in wrong decision. He has, taken us through the evidence adduced by the parties. He has placed reliance upon (1) Abdul Aziz v. Abdul Ghani 1986 SCMR 1857; (2) Taher Ali v. Miran Bux Karam Bux 1989 SCMR 403; (3) Inayat Ullah v. Zahoor-ud-Din 1987 SCMR 1313 and (4) Najmuddin v. Zamir Ahmed PLD 1982 Karachi 188 in support of his contention.
5. ' The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon (1) Muhammad Azam v. Inayat Shah 1998 SCMR 1356; (2) Waris Khan v. Zainab Nisar 1997 SCMR 526; (3) Hajiani Aisha v. Abdul Waheed PLD 1989 SC 489; (4) Alima Ahmad v. Amir Ali PLD 1984 SC 32; (5) Abdul Rasheed v. Saleh Muhammad 1980 SCMR 506 and Waris Ali Tirmizi v. Liaqat Begum 1980 SCMR 601 in support of impugned judgment.
6. 'Admitted position in the instant case is that the petitioner/tenant did not pay rent to the respondent from 1-1-1984 till filing of eviction application on 12-5-1992 and deposited the same in Miscellaneous Rent Case No,1608 of 1984. The case of the petitioner/tenant is that the rent collector of the respondent/landlord did not come for collection of the rent after December, 1983 and that there used to be practice of collection of rent in lump sum. Both the Courts below, after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that there was no refusal on the part of the respondent/landlord to accept rent and there was no smooth and consistent practice with regard to payment of rent in lump sum and further that payment of rent in contravention of the provision of rent laws amounted to wilful default in payment of rent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out from the evidence on record any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any legal infirmity in the impugned orders passed against him. The concurrent findings of fact of two Courts below are based on proper appraisal of evidence and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. The facts of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are quite different and distinguishable to the facts of the instant case.
7. ' In the circumstances, we find no merit in this petition, therefore, leave is refused and the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner/tenant is granted period of six months to vacate the premises and hand over its possession to the respondent/landlord subject to payment of rent and other charges.