Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 2761
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Const. P. 850/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Faisal Nadeem (Petitioner)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 2761. In this matter between Const. P. 850/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Faisal Nadeem (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 850/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2025 SHC KHI 2761 PARTIES: Faisal Nadeem (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 07-OCT-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ 1
Order Sheet IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI C.P. No.S-850 of 2025 [ Faisal Nadeem v. Mst. Atiya Aftab and others]
Petitioner: Through Mr. Naheed Afzal Khan, Advocate.
Respondent No.1 Through Mian Muhammad Nouman Naeem, Advocate
Date of Hg: & Order: 07.10.2025
ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN, J. The petitioner -Faisal Nadeem through instant constitutional petition has challenged the judgment dated 13.08.2025, passed by IV-Additional District Judge, Karachi- Central in FRA No.108/2025 whereby order dated 10.05.2025, passed by the Rent Controller-XII, Karachi-Central in Rent Case No.42/2025, allowing the ejectment application was upheld and the aforesaid FRA was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 /applicant- Atiya Aftab filed an ejectment application under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against the petitioner on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal need. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the material available on record, allowed the ejectment application on both counts and directed the petitioner to vacate the demised premises, i.e. House No. C -190, 1st Floor, Block -A, North Nazimabad, Karachi [demised premises ], within thirty (30) days. The said orde r was assa iled by the petitioner through the aforesaid First Rent Appeal, which was dismissed, affirming the findings of the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner has now invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the concurrent findings of the two courts below. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgment, passed by the Appellate Court, and the order passed by the Rent Controller are erroneous and perverse. It is argued that the decisions were re ndered in a hasty manner, without proper consideration of the evidence available on the record. Per learned counsel, the impugned findings suffer from illegalities and material irregularities, being based on conjectures, surmises, and assumptions
2
rather than on the evidence available on the record. It is further urged that the impugned decisions are vitiated by non-reading and misreading of evidence and are, therefore, void ab initio and liable to be set aside. 4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the concurrent findings of the two courts below, contending that the impugned decisions are well -reasoned and based on proper appreciation of the evidence and applicable law. It is argued that t he petitioner committed persistent default in payment of rent despite repeated demands and failed to produce any cogent material in defence. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 fully established her bona fide personal requirement for the demis ed premises through oral and documentary evidence, which remained unshaken in the cross- examination. Learned counsel maintains that both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact after due consideration of the record, and no illegality, ir regularity, or jurisdictional defect has been pointed out warranting interference in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, he has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced and examination of the material on record, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner do not appear to have any convincing force. The allegations of haste, misreading, and non -reading of evidence are general in nature and unsupported by any specific reference to the record. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the impugned decisions are vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity. On the other hand, the respondent has successfull y shown that the petitioner persistently defaulted in payment of rent and that the premises are required bona fide for her personal use. The submissions made on behalf of respondent No.1 carry weight and find support from the evidence on record. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller reflects that the eviction application was filed by respondent No.1 on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal need. Upon appraisal of the evidence led by both sides, the Rent Controller concluded that respondent No.1 had successfully proved her case on both counts. Consequently, the ejectment application was allowed and
3
the petitioner was directed to vacate the demised premises within thirty (30) days. The said findings w ere thereafter assailed before the Appellate Court, which, upon re -examination of the record, upheld the order of the Rent Controller by assigning detailed and cogent reasons. 6. The jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary and aimed at promoting justice, not causing injustice. It is not an appellate forum but limited to identifying any manifest illegality in the impugned order. Where subordinate courts have exercised their discretion properly and on sound principles, the supervis ory court should not interfere unless the discretion is contrary to law or established usage. In this case, no manifest illegality, jurisdictional defect, or abuse of discretion has been shown that would justify interference by this Court. 7. It is also a well settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction is not supposed to interfere in the findings on the controversial question of facts, even if such findings are erroneous. The scope of the judicial review of t he High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in such cases, is limited to the extent of mis-reading or non -reading of evidence or if the findings are based on evidence which may cause miscarriage of justice but it is not proper for this Court to dis turb the findings of facts through reappraisal of evidence in writ jurisdiction or exercise this jurisdiction as substitute of revision or appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan i n the case of Farhat Jabeen v. Muhammad Safdar and others [2011 SCMR 1073 ] has held as under:- "Heard. From the impugned judgment of the learned High Court, it is eminently clear that the evidence of the respondent side was only considered and was made the basis of setting aside the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two co urts of fact; whereas the evidence of the appellant was not adverted to at all, touched upon or taken into account, this is a serious illegality committed by the High Court because it is settled rule by now that interference in the findings of facts concur rently arrived at by the courts, should not be lightly made, merely for the reason that another conclusion shall be possibly drawn, on the reappraisal of the evidence; rather interference is restricted to the cases of misreading and non -reading of material evidence which has bearing on the fate of the case."
8. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the existence of a landlord –tenant relationship, the rate of rent, or the expiry of the tenancy agreement. As regards the issue of default in
4
payment of rent, the bank statement produced by the petitioner/ tenant clearly reflects that the rent deposited by the petitioner into the respondent’s bank account was not in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the tenancy agreement. Insofar as personal bonafide need of the premises is concerned, the respondent/ landlord, being the owner of the rented premises, possesses a fundamental right to reclaim possession of her property for her own use and benefit, rather than being compelled to allow it to remain in the occupation of a tenant. Under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, this right is explicitly recognized, enabling a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant where the premises are required for the landlord’s personal bona fide use. This statutory provision ensures that the owner is not deprived of the opportunity to utilize her property in accordance with her genuine need. 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that once a landlord enters the witness box and, on oath, asserts a bona fide personal requirement, the burden shifts to the tenant to demonstrate that s uch need is neither genuine nor made in good faith. In the present case, no credible or cogent evidence has been produced by the opponent to rebut the landlord’s sworn statement or to establish that the asserted need was illusory or tainted with mala fides . The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Shoaib Alam and others v. Muhammad Iqbal [2000 SCMR 903], inter alia, held that a landlord’s statement on oath, if consistent with the pleadings and unshaken during cross -examination or unrebutted by the tenant, is sufficient to establish bona fide requirement. The same view was affirmed in Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali [1997 SCMR 1062] and Messrs Al -Karam Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. East West Insurance Co. Ltd. [2001 SCMR 688]. 10. In the instant matter both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact, and the petitioner has failed to bring on record any material to demonstrate that such findings are either perverse, suffer from a jurisdictional defect, or are the result of misreading or non -reading of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any error of law or procedural irregularity in the passing of the impugned judgment/order. It is a well- settled principle of law that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
5
courts below are not to be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction, except in extraordinary circumstances where patent illegality, perversity, or a jurisdictional defect is demonstrated. No such circumstance has been shown to exist in the present case. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the instant petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed along with pending application(s).
JUDGE
Jamil*