Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 997 of 1979, decided on 23rd December, 1979.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court: Lahore, dated 29‑10‑1979 in S. A. O. No. 290 of 1971).
‑‑ Ss. 13 & 15‑Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent‑Finding of fact by District Judge regarding failure of tenant to pay rent not suffering from any material error‑First appellate Court being entitled to appraise evidence and to reach a contrary conclusion and such upheld by High Court in preference to that of Rent Controller‑Petition for special leave to appeal dismissed. S. Farooq Hassan Naqvi, Advocate and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner. A. R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate and Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 23rd December, 1979.
‑After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the caveator‑respondent, we had dismissed the petition by a short order embracing the undertaking given by the latter. These are the reasons for it.
The petitioner sued the respondent for her ejectment from house No. C/172, situate in Hira Mandi, Lahore, on the ground of default in the payment of rent for the period from the 15th of February, 1969 to the 14th of May, 1969, which was resisted on the ground that the petitioner had tendered the rent but it was refused; and, thereafter, it was sent by money order which again was returned as by that time the application for her ejectment had been filed. The Rent Controller, by order dated 17th of June, 1971, dismissed the application holding that there was a default but it was condonable as the rent had been tendered but refused. The Additional District Judge reversed this conclusion and accepted the appeal which order was upheld in second appeal.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, in seeking leave to appeal against this order, contended that there was oral evidence to support the plea of the tender of rent which was erroneously rejected by the first appellate Court and consequently its conclusion that the rent was neither offered nor tendered was untenable. The learned counsel further submitted that this view should not have been upheld by the High Court in preferences to that of the Rent Controller, whose conclusion was based on a correct appreciation of evidence. We are not impressed by this submission a the learned counsel was unable to satisfy us as to in what respect the finding of fact suffered from any material error. The first appellate Court was entitled to re‑appraise the evidence and to reach a contrary conclusion. Accordingly, we see no impropriety in it.
The petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer