Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 144‑R of 1981, decided on 7^th March, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 14‑5‑1981. of the High Court of Sind (Circuit Court at Sukkur) in Rent Appeal No. 13 of . 1980).

‑‑ S. 13(6)‑Deposit of rent made one day after due date and failure alleged to be due to calamitous incessant rains disrupting ordinary human dealings‑Rent Controller disallowing plea but High Court accepting same and reversing order of Rent Controller‑Petitioner unable to satisfy Supreme Court as to finding of fact reached by High Court having suffered from any infirmity‑‑Contention that newspaper report relied upon from respondent's side before Rent Controller could not be accepted as substantive evidence, held, without force, firstly because provisions of Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to Rent Controller's forum and secondly because newspaper report itself not accepted as substantive evidence but only as Corrobora tive of statement made from respondent's side‑No justification for interference having been made out, petition dismissed.‑

S. Mumtaz Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) and Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th March, 1982.

.‑Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 14‑5‑1981 of the High Court of Sind, whereby a regular first rent appeal filed by the respondents/tenants from an order of the learned Rent Controller striking off his defence on account of non‑compliance with an order of deposit of monthly rent, was allowed, and the Rent Controller's order was set aside.

The deposit in question was to be made before the 15th of July, 1978 ; and the 14th of July being a public holiday, the deposit was not made on the fixed day, i.e. 15th of July, on the plea that the failure was due to a calamity and act of nature beyond human control, namely, incessant rains disrupting ordinary human dealings. The deposit was accordingly made on the next day, i.e. 16th of July, 1978.

The learned Rent Controller after consideration of the plea raised from respondent's side, rejected the same and struck off the defence with a consequential order of their eviction. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, on first appeal by the tenants, re‑examined the material placed before the Rent Controller and reversed the finding of fact regarding the plea raised from the respondents' side. Accordingly, the order of the eviction was set aside. The landlord has now sought leave to appeal.

The learned counsel has tried to criticise the reasoning of the learned Judge in the High Court as without appreciating the evidence/material before the learned Rent Controller. He has also raised other questions relatable to factual controversy. He has; however, failed to satisfy us that the finding of fact reached by the High Court with reference to the circumstances beyond the respondents' control due to which the relevant deposit could not be made. suffers from any infirmity. His contention that newspaper report relied upon from the respondents' side before the Rent Controller, could not be accepted as substantive evidence is also without any force ; firstly, the provisions of the Evidence Act relied upon by the learned counsel in this behalf, do not apply to the Rent Controller's forum, and secondly, it is not correct that the newspaper report itself was accepted as substantive evidence. It was found as having been corroborated by the deposition made from the respondents' side. On this account also, no justification has been made out for interference. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.