Pakistan Case Law
2003 SCMR 1671

SARWAR HASAN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL AKHTAR

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2003 SCMR 1671
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,172-K of 2001
Date2002-06-20
Judge(s)Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ail Mirza
Authored bySyed Deedar Hussain Shah
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 23-1-2001, passed in First Rent Appeal (F.R.A.) No. 499 of 1995. The petitioner contended that the High Court's judgment was unsustainable in law due to misreading and non-reading of the evidence recorded by the Rent Controller, and a failure to properly appreciate the facts and law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after hearing the arguments and perusing the record, found that the petitioner had made out a case for the grant of leave. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Single Judge of the High Court properly appreciated the law and evidence on record, whether the respondent defaulted on the payment of rent for the demised premises for the period from 22-7-1993 to 21-8-1993, and whether the impugned order of the High Court is legally maintainable.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a Single Judge of the High Court in a rent appeal properly appreciates the law and evidence when there is an allegation of misreading and non-reading of the record?
  • Whether the respondent committed a default in the payment of rent for the demised premises for the period from 22-7-1993 to 21-8-1993?
  • Whether an order of the High Court in a rent appeal is maintainable if it fails to correctly evaluate the evidence recorded by the Rent Controller?
leave to appealrent disputedefault in rentmisreading of evidencenon-reading of evidencedemised premises

' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 23-1-2001, passed in F.R.A. No,499 of 1995.

2. The facts, which have already been discussed in the impugned judgment of the High Court, need not be repeated.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law, as the learned Single Judge in Chambers did not appreciate the facts and law while allowing the appeal of the respondent; and that there is misreading and non-reading of the evidence recorded by the Rent Controller.

4. After hearing and perusing the record, we are convinced that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of leave. Leave is, therefore, granted to consider:--

(1) Whether the learned Single Judge appreciated the law as well as the evidence on record?

(2) Whether the respondent is defaulter in payment of rent of the demised premises from 22-7- 1993 to 21-8-1993? And

(3) Whether the order of the learned Single Judge is maintainable?

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.