2020 CLC 14 Sindh
Art.199—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Scope—Concurrent findings of fact—Such well reasoned findings of fact could not be called in question in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court unless there was any jurisdictional defect or misreading or non-reading of evidence.
(b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)— —-S.15—Stamp Act (II of 1899), S. 29(c)—Lease agreement—Registration of stamp paper by lessee— Scope—Section 29(c) of Stamp Act, 1899, provided that in absence of agreement to the contrary, the expense of providing the proper stamp paper shall be borne by the lessee or intended lessee—-No evidence or material whatsoever, was produced by the lessee before the Rent Controller to show that there was agreement between the parties that the lessor was obliged to arrange for registration of the lease deed or to pay the charges/stamps in relation thereto—Under S.29(c) of the Stamp Act, 1899 it was the responsibility of lessor to get the said deed registered and to bear the expenses in respect thereof.
(c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)—- —-S. 15(2)(ii)—Default in payment of rent—Scope—Payment of rent due within 60 days—Monthly rent was not tendered by the lessee either within period stipulated in the deed or within 60 days from the date when monthly rent became due and payable—In either case the lessee had committed default in payment of monthly rent.
(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—- —–O. XLI, R. 27(1)—–Production of additional evidence at appellate stage—-Principles—-First Appellate Court could take additional evidence only if after examining the evidence produced by the parties it came to the conclusion that the same was inherently defective or insufficient, and unless additional evidence was allowed, judgment could not be pronounced—Only such additional evidence could be permitted to be brought on record at the appellate stage which was required by the appellate Court itself for final or conclusive adjudication in the matter, or for any other substantial cause—Sole criterion as to whether additional evidence should be allowed or not depended upon the question whether or not the appellate Court required the evidence “to enable it to pronounce a satisfactory and complete judgment or for any other substantial cause”; in such an event, the appellate Court may allow additional evidence either on an application by any of the parties or even suo motu.
(e) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)—- —-S. 10(3)—-Default in payment of monthly rent—-Refusal of landlord to accept monthly rent—- Contention of the lessee, in order to justify the default in payment of monthly rent was that landlord refused to accept monthly rent from them—-Held, if the landlord refused to accept monthly rent, the lessee was required under subsection (3) of S.10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to tender the monthly rent to landlord through money order and in case of refusal by the latter, it was required under the said provision to deposit the rent in Court.