SALIM PERVAIZ vs HUSSAIN BANO
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's rent appeal regarding the eviction of a tenant. The petitioner, a landlord, had sought the eviction of the respondent from a flat in Karachi on grounds of default in rent payment, impairment of the premises' value and utility, and nuisance. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application after recording evidence, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller improperly decided the issue of default based solely on a special oath, in violation of Article 163 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller did not rely exclusively on the special oath but also considered other evidence on record. Finding no misreading or disregard of material evidence, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that a judgment based on a proper appraisal of all evidence is sustainable even if a special oath is mentioned.
- Can a Rent Controller decide an issue of default based solely on a special oath?
- Does the reliance on a special oath invalidate a judgment if other evidence was also considered?
- What constitutes a valid appraisal of evidence by a Rent Controller in eviction proceedings?
- Article 163, Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18-1- 2001 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi whereby the first rent appeal filed by him was dismissed with costs:
2. The petitioner rented out his Flat No,7 on Plot No,G-2/119, Thatai Compound, Karachi to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs,300 per month. He filed Rent Application No,647 of 1998 in the Court of VIIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent since July, 1997, impairing the value and utility of the premises in question and creating nuisance. The respondent contested the application. The learned Rent Controller, after recording evidence and hearing the arguments of the parties, found all the issues in the negative and dismissed the rent application vide order dated 28-4-2000. The first rent Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
3. The sole contention before the High Court was that the Rent Controller decided the case on the basis of special oath with respect to the issue of default, which had not been accepted by the petitioner, thus the provisions of Article 163 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 were violated.
4. After hearing Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petittioner at some length and perusing the material available on record, we find that the High Court was right in holding that the Rent Controller had not solely relied on the special oath but had also relied upon other evidence brought on record. We do not find any serious misreading and/or disregard of any material piece of evidence on record. The impugned judgment is based on proper appraisal of evidence on record.
5. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined.