AFTAB AHM ED GORAR, J. This petition has been filed by the tenant against the concurrent findings of two Courts below in respect of an application under section 15(2) (ii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which application was allowed and the appellant was directed to vacate the premises in question.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is against the law as the two Courts below have failed to consider the ill motive of respondent. He has also contended that the concurrent findings of two Courts, below are illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and have been passed without proper appreciation of evidence, facts and law therefore, the same are liable to be interfered with and set aside. He further argued that the two Courts below have failed to consider the contradictions in the evidence which are sufficient to prove mala fides of respondent No.1.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly prayed for remand of the case considering the above circumstances.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner impugned the concurrent findings of two Courts below, which are according to law and he has failed to point out any discrepancy in both the orders. He contended that the petitioner has committed default and failed to pay monthly rent. He further submitted that the scope of the petition is limited and at this juncture petitioners could only point out any illegality and infirmity, if any, in the orders impugned.
He also contended that though learned Counsel for petitioner took plea that the orders passed by two Courts below are illegal, unlawful and arbitrary but did not point iota of evidence in this regard in support of his version. He therefore, contended that the orders passed by the two Courts below are strictly in accordance with law and as such do not call for any interference. He contended that this petition may be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for parties, perused the material available before me and have gone through the impugned orders of two Courts below.
5. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued the matter at length and raised several grounds in support of his version but neither he rebutted relationship of landlord and tenant amongst the parties nor has he shown any material to state as to when and how he has paid the rent amount for the period w.e.f. June, 2017 as held by the learned appellate Court below. During arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner has at no point of time agitated to show bona fide of the petitioner to pay the rent to the respondent No.1 nor has pleaded it before the Court. While on Court query about payment of rent amount during the period of default and receipts thereof, learned Counsel for the petitioner skipped the moot point and started agitating other things.
Moreover the petitioner has failed to shake the evidence brought on record with regard to the default in payment of rent. It is well settled principle of law that once a default is committed by a party, it would make liable to be evicted from the premises.
6. Above are the reasons for the short order dated 31.5.2022 whereby this petition was dismissed.