SADAT ALI BAIG vs BUX ILLAHI
The petitioner instituted a rent case seeking the respondent's ejectment from the premises on the ground of infringement of the terms and conditions of the tenancy due to the demolition of an intervening wall. The Rent Controller allowed the application after remand, finding that the wall had existed at the commencement of the tenancy and was subsequently demolished. On appeal, the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh reversed the Rent Controller's finding and held that the petitioners failed to establish their case under Section 15(2)(iii)(c) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. In seeking leave to appeal, the petitioners contended that the High Court failed to advert to the evidence on record regarding the question of fact concerning the existence of the wall and instead relied merely on case-law. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised requires examination and granted leave to appeal.
- Whether the High Court is required to advert to the evidence on record when reversing a finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller?
- Does the demolition of an intervening wall between a shop and open space amount to an infringement of the terms and conditions of tenancy under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Section 15(2)(iii)(c), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner instituted a rent case against the respondent seeking his ejectment from the premises on the ground of infringement of the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller by order, dated 23-9-1991. However, on appeal filed by the respondent the order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision and parties were allowed to lead further evidence in the case. After remand of the case, the Rent Controller held that the wall intervening between the shops and the open space let out to the respondent was demolished which amounted to infringement of the terms and condition of the tenancy. On appeal the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller holding that the petitioners failed to establish their case within the parameters of section 15(2)(iii)(c) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
2. In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Judge in Chambers while reversing the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of existence of wall between the shop and open space let out to the respondent, did not advert to the evidence on record and simply made reference to the decided cases on the question of law argued before him.
The learned counsel contended that whether a wall existed between the shop and the open space let out to the respondent, was a question of fact which could only be resolved by reference to the evidence on record and not to the case-law discussed by the learned Judge in Chambers in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel took us through the order of the Rent Controller wherein the Rent Controller after referring to the evidence led by the parties came to a categorical finding that there was a wall existing between the shop and the open space let out by the petitioners to the respondent at the commencement of the tenancy which was subsequently demolished by the tenant. The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence reached the conclusion that there was infringement of the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The learned Judge in Chambers while reversing the finding of the Rent Controller, made no reference to the evidence recorded in the case and simply observed that the petitioners failed to prove their case within the provisions of the law. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners requires examination and leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted.
Leave to .