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 Leave to Appeal No. K‑216 of 1984, decided on 27th September, 1984.
‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, (XVII of 1979), S.15(2)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant decided by Rent Controller on basis of evidence recorded in case‑‑Plea that dispute relating to title of property should have been left to Civil Court to decide, repelled‑‑High Court on re‑appraisal of evidence upholding finding of fact proved on record‑‑Findings being rooted in evidence 'not open to interference‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Gul Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 27th September, 1984.
This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 25‑3‑1984 whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller, dated 31‑10‑1983 directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises was confirmed. The Rent Controller passed that order on being satisfied with respondent‑landlord's plea that petitioner, his tenant, was defaulter in payment of rent and he also bona fide required the premises for himself and his family consisting of 15 members. Petitioner raised the plea that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but it was rejected by the Rent Controller on the basis of evidence recorded in the case.
Mr. Gul Zaman Khan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the High Court has not appreciated petitioner's plea that he, and not the respondent, is the owner of the premises and since the dispute related to the title of the property it should have been left to the civil Court to decide the controversy.
Learned counsel further submits that the findings of the High Court on the other issues involved in the case are also erroneous.
We find that the High Court on re‑appraisal of the evidence recorded in the case has geld as a finding of fact that petitioner is the tenant of the respondent and 'that respondent's assertion that he bona fide requires the premises for himself and his family stands proved on record. Since these findings are rooted in evidence, there is no scope for this Court to interfere.
The petition is dismissed.
M.I Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer