2000 PLP 1273 (SCMR)
SHAUKAT and 2 others — =Petitioners Versus ALI HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1273 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, CJ- and Kamal Mansur Alain, J |
| Parties | SHAUKAT and 2 others — =Petitioners Versus ALI HUSSAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of (1979), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1273 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of (1979), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1273 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, CJ- and Kamal Mansur Alain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1273 (SCMR) (SHAUKAT and 2 others — =Petitioners Versus ALI HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghimuddin Mirza, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1999,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh dated 24-9-1999, passed in R.F.A. No. 16 of 1996).
Art. 185
Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Scope
No finding of fact is to be scrutinized by Supreme Court in absence of any misreading or non-consideration of any material piece of evidence on record.
S. 15
Default in payment of monthly rent-- Remitting of rent through money order after due period
Concurrent findings of both the Courts below
Contention by tenant was that rent was paid to landlord who did not issue any receipt--Validity
Both the Courts below did not believe the assertion of the tenants that no receipts were issued in acknowledgement of payment of rent
Such question could not be examined by Supreme Court in appeal
No evidence was available on record to the effect that the rent was paid by the tenants for disputed period-- Money orders on record, through which rent was allegedly remitted were also of no avail to the tenants as the same were tendered after default was committed
No case for interference with the judgment of High Court was made out.
Judgment & Decree
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. 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 there from without any further notice and if necessary with police aid. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./S-21/S Petition dismissed.