2010 PLP 1582 (SCMR)
ITTEHAD CHEMICALS LIMITED — Petitioner Versus VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (SOUTH) and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1582 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | ITTEHAD CHEMICALS LIMITED — Petitioner Versus VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (SOUTH) and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1582 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1582 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1582 (SCMR) (ITTEHAD CHEMICALS LIMITED — Petitioner Versus VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (SOUTH) and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia-ul-Haq Makhdoom, Advocate Supreme Court and K. A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Naveed-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Izhar Alam Farooqi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.3.
- 2. The controversy before the Rent Controller and the appellate Court was entirely of a factual nature. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has adverted to evidence produced by the petitioner itself, which points to the prevailing rent in the vicinity of the premises in question. There is other evidence also which has been fully considered by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge fixing the fair rent at Rs. 80,000. This has been affirmed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 8 & 21
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Landlord sought enhancement of rent of the premises from Rs.8,178 P.M. to Rs.96,000
Rent Controller after considering the evidences, fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.80,000 P.M.
Appeal filed by the tenant against the judgment of Rent Controller having been dismissed by the Appellate Court, tenant had filed constitutional petition, which also having been dismissed by the High Court, tenant had filed petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court
Controversy before the Rent Controller was entirely of a factual nature
Evidence produced on record had pointed to the prevailing rent of the vicinity of the premises in question
Both Rent Controller and Appellate Court had fully considered evidence on record while fixing rent at Rs.80,000 P.M. which had been affirmed by the High Court
Supreme Court would not embark upon reappraisal of evidence and substitute its on findings for those of Rent Controller and Appellate Court
Counsel for the tenant had requested that the enhancement of rent should be fixed from the date of the order of the Rent Controller and not from the date of the application filed by the landlords--Supreme Court declined the request of the tenant
No justification being available for interfering in the concurrent judgments of the two courts as affirmed by the High Court, petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioner impugns the judgment of the High Court dated 15-10-2009. The petitioner is a tenant of respondent No. 3 in premises which are the subject matter of this litigation. The respondent had applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent through an application dated 1-5-2004. The Rent Controller proceeded to record evidence. Although the respondent had sought enhancement of rent from Rs. 8,178 per month to Rs. 96,000 for the premises, the Rent Controller after considering the evidence fixed the fair rent at Rs. 80,000 vide order dated 4-8-2008. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal which was dismissed by an Addl. District Judge vide order dated 18-10-2008. Being dissatisfied with the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate Court, the petitioner filed CP No.S-548 of 2008 before the High Court. This petition has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment.
2. The controversy before the Rent Controller and the appellate Court was entirely of a factual nature. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has adverted to evidence produced by the petitioner itself, which points to the prevailing rent in the vicinity of the premises in question. There is other evidence also which has been fully considered by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge fixing the fair rent at Rs. 80,
000. This has been affirmed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment.
3. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. It is not for this Court to embark upon, reappraisal of evidence and substitute its own findings for those of the Rent Controller and the learned Addl. District Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that the enhancement of rent should be fixed from the date of the order of the Rent Controller and not from the date of the application filed by the respondent i.e. 1-5-2004. We find no substance in the request. The same is, therefore, declined.
4. In the circumstances, we find no justification for interfering in the concurrent judgments of the two Courts as confirmed by the High Courts. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./I-5/SC Leave refused.