Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. K‑294 of 1985, decided on 15th May, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sind, dated 25‑10‑1985, in R.F.A. 486 of 1982).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979, Ss.15 & 21‑‑Arguments advanced in support of petition amounting to a request for reappraisal of evidence‑‑Appreciation of evidence made by High Court rooted in evidence on record to which no exception could be taken‑‑Leave refused.
K . A. Wahab, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 15th May, 1986.
This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 5‑5‑1985, allowing an appeal filed by the respondent /landlord against the order of the Rent Controller by which respondent's application for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises was dismissed. As a result of the impugned judgment the High Court directed petitioner's viction from the demise premises.
Respondent applied to the Rent Controller for petitioner's eviction on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent from April to September, 1974. Petitioner denied this allegation, and asserted that respondent as a practice used to collect rent in a lump sum. With regard to specific allegation of default in payment of rent from April to September, 1974 petitioner asserted that in the first week of June, 1974, he had paid rent for the month of May and advance rent for June to August, 1974, but respondent did not issue any receipt to him. Admitted position is that petitioner also sent money order on 5‑9‑1974, for Rs.225 covering rent for aforesaid five months. The Rent Controller accepted the version of the petitioner and rejected respondent's application, but on appeal learned Judge in the High' Court reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal as stated earlier.
The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition really amount to a request for the reappraisal of evidence. Since the appreciation of evidence made by the High Court is rooted in evidence on record, interference by this Court could not be justified. There is, therefore, no merit in the pleas raised by the learned counsel. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer