MUHAMMAD AYUB, SHOP MANAGER BATA PAK. LTD vs MUHAMMAD RAHMAN art — 2026 SCMR 31 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD AYUB, SHOP MANAGER BATA PAK. LTD VS MUHAMMAD RAHMAN art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---High Court substituting its own view on disputed questions of fact---Scope---Reappraisal of evidence by High Court---Permissibility---High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution, may not substitute its own view on disputed questions of fact unless there is gross misreading or non-reading of material evidence, or findings that are wholly perverse or unsupported by the record---The High Court is not an appellate forum to reappraise evidence merely on grounds of perceived injustice unless the conclusions arrived at by the subordinate fora are shown to be legally untenable. art. 129(g)---Withholding of best available evidence---Effect---Not impleading a party, having a close proximity to the matter, or summoning it as a witness can constitute withholding of the best available evidence---Such omission operates adversely against the party who fails to produce material witnesses without explanation. art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Concurrent findings---Interference---Permissibility---Interference in concurrent findings by High Court is permissible only when such findings are shown to be illegal, perverse, or based on extraneous considerations. S. 13(2)(i)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Landlord seeking ejectment of tenant and recovery of arrears of rent---Claim of arrears filed by landlord after four years without any credible evidence---Burden on landlord to prove claim of rent---High Court allowed the ejectment petition along with recovery of rent---Legality---Respondent / landlord filed an ejectment application before the rent controller against petitioners / tenants seeking possession of the shop in question along with recovery of rent from 2016 onwards---The respondent / landlord claimed that the tenancy agreement had expired in 2016, yet the petitioners retained possession after locking the premises---The petitioners submitted a reply asserting that they had already handed over vacant possession and paid all dues but did not contest further and were proceeded against ex-parte---The rent controller allowed the ejectment application but rejected the rent arrears claim which was affirmed in appeal---However, High Court set aside the concurrent findings, granting ejectment along with recovery of rent from January 2016 to January 2024, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court---Both the rent controller and the appellate authority concurrently found that the respondent / landlord failed to discharge the burden of proving rent arrears or continued possession by the petitioners after 2016---These findings were based on appreciation of evidence, or the lack thereof, and did not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error---No witness was produced to support the claim that the petitioners / tenants continued to occupy the premises after 2016---The individual named "S", in whose purported assurance the respondent / landlord allegedly refrained from taking possession, was neither impleaded as a party nor summoned as a witness, therefore, such omission constituted withholding of the best available evidence---Furthermore, the statutory regime under Section 13(2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 prescribed a period of sixty days for initiating proceedings in cases of non-payment of rent, in the absence of a fixed timeline in the tenancy agreement---In the present case, the tenancy agreement expired in 2016 and the ejectment application was filed in 2020 and no explanation was offered for this extraordinary delay, nor was there any plea of acknowledgment or revival of the tenancy in the interceding period---The unexplained lapse of nearly four years was fatal to the claim, both on grounds of limitation and laches---The finding of the High Court that the respondent/landlord was entitled to rent for eight years, in the absence of proof of possession or an ongoing tenancy, disregarded fundamental rules of evidence---The landlord, having admitted that the shop remained locked and having produced no cogent evidence to show that the petitioners/tenants used or benefited from the premises during that period, cannot be awarded rent merely because the tenants failed to actively contest the proceedings---Impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, in circumstances. art. 117---Burden of proof on party asserting a claim---Scope---The burden of proof rests with the party asserting a claim, and the absence of rebuttal by the other side does not automatically result in the success of the claim, particularly when the claim is unsupported by credible evidence.

MUHAMMAD AYUB, SHOP MANAGER BATA PAK. LTD vs MUHAMMAD RAHMAN art — 2026 SCMR 31 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR